Slashdot Mirror
Can Drones Really Get National Airspace Access?
coondoggie writes "There is a push by a variety of proponents to give unmanned aircraft more free rein in US airspace, but safety is a major hitch in that effort. The Federal Aviation Administration said this week that data from the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency, which flies unmanned systems on border patrols, shows a total of 5,688 flight hours from Fiscal Year 2006 to July 13, 2010. The CBP accident rate is 52.7 accidents per 100,000 flight hours. This accident rate is more than seven times the general aviation accident rate (7.11 accidents/100,000 flight hours) and 353 times the commercial aviation accident rate (0.149 accidents/100,000 flight hours)."
An FAA executive noted that an "accident" refers to a situation in which "the aircraft has done something unplanned or unexpected and violates an airspace regulation."
Only if you didn't file a flight plan for the missile at least one week in advance *ducks*
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
I'm a pilot, paramedic and software engineer. My flying is personal but I try to take a "professional" approach. I agree that there are a lot of not so great pilots out there but the most basic pilot has had a bunch more training than 99.99% of the drivers out there. A typical "commercial" pilot with a commercial certification and an instrument rating (and typically multi-engine in both) has about 3-5 times the training typically required for a CDL.
Pilots and the flying industry are one of the most regulated endeavors in modern society. A good chunk of those regulations are "written in blood" from past accidents. Besides a few thousand pages of official FAA regulations there are thousdand more in ACs, TSOs and even industry standards like SAE, Milstd, ASTM, RTCC, etc. One big part of the problem is there are no standards for UAVs or UAV operators.
Flying is still heavily dependent on "see and avoid". The reality is we probably still avoid as many or more crashes from "big sky theory" than "see and avoid". The people who want to fly UAVs mostly want to fly them where the risk is highest - down low and over population areas. Also the UAV accident rate isn't as sparse as it sounds. There are well over 100,000 hours factoring in overseas usage. Even if you subtract out combat or unknown losses the accident rate of the UAV business is abysmal. Remember this is the industry that gave us unencrypted classified combat video. Check out http://www.homeland1.com/homeland-security-products/unmanned-aerial-vehicles-uav/articles/847069-accident-reports-show-us-drone-aircraft-plagued-with-problems/.
The argument that there is no pilot so the risk is minimal is disturbing. A predator is almost 30' long and a 48' wingspan - 1200# empty and over a ton fully loaded. This is comparable to most 4 seat trainers. Several of the private drones are smaller but have even less QA and little to no redundancy.
The first and only NSTB report on a drone crash is at http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20060509X00531&ntsbno=CHI06MA121&akey=1. It cites the typical chain of errors as well as a series of poor design decisions. It also notes the wreckage path indicated a flat approach and a wreckage path of almost 100' with jet fuel scattered around the crash site (there was no ignition). The operations console being used had suffered approximately 16 lockups in the 4 months prior to the crash and suck lockups were viewed as normal and acceptable. The normal "lost link" procedure normally keeps the aircraft flying a predetermined route over unpopulated areas until control was restablished but improper recovery on the crash failure caused the engine to be turned off.
The lost link route procedure was called out in the NTSB report: "Another contractor, Organizational Strategies, Inc. (OSI), provided the coordinates for the lost-link waypoints to CBP. OSI reported that it developed the waypoints using an Internet satellite website. CBP reported that it also used the same Internet satellite website to verify the location of the waypoints. According to this website, some of the website's imagery is 1 to 3 years old. Neither OSI nor CBP used additional methods to confirm that the waypoints were not located over populated areas." No indication of the resolution of the satellite imagry used - and no requirement for direct verification.
In fairness the CBP is actually one of the more rigourous operators of UAVs. Their pilots are required to be certificated pilots with at least 200 hours of actualy flying time and 200 hours of UAS flying time. They also use specific TFRs to provide seperation and maintain contact and obtain clearances from ATC. Not all FAA "Certificates of Authority" require this level of coordination or training. Many smaller operators operate close enough to the ground or restricted terrain or existing restricted airspace viewed to not interfere with existing flight activity.
The simple reality is the UAV industry is about where manned flight was in the 30s. They hav
When considering threats to our liberties, Constitutional protections, and property, the difference between transnational corporations and "big government" is immaterial and indistinguishable.
Both are to be feared and resisted. Equally. In fact, they act alike, and are too often in collusion.
Trust no one.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
In order to remain safely in flight, a plane has what's called a "performance envelope" - it's the range of conditions during which a plane can still safely fly. Go too slow, the plane falls out of the sky. (stalls) Go too fast, parts start falling off. Turn too sharply, you overstress the airframe, etc. etc.
When a twin engine plane loses 50% of its power, it suddenly behaves very differently. It climbs very slowly, making it easy to go too slow and stall. It pulls sharply to one side, forcing the pilot to compensate with very heavy rudder action. These and other, related factors make it very likely that the pilot will make a mistake that takes the plane out of its performance envelope and crash. Pilots of twins are much more likely to try to keep flying the plane rather than land it safely off-field.
Combine that with the fact that twice the engines mean that it's twice as likely to have an engine failure, and you end up with a confluence of factors that actually decrease safety by a significant volume.
Compare this to a single-engine plane: Engine's out = "Where's the best place to land?" Pretty simple decision, during which time the plane is gliding smoothly, it's quiet, and there is only one choice to make. The vast majority of the time, even over mountains and/or populated cities, there's a safe place to land! Freeways/roads, fields, even the roof of a large building can all make good emergency landing spots in a pinch. In General Aviaation, less than 10% of "forced landings" result in fatalities.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
There was an article in AOPA some time ago about this very thing. It seems that emergency landings in SE aircraft are several orders more survivable than Multi-engined aircraft. They brought up a few good points.
1. When your engine fails in a single-engine, you automatically go into emergency landing mode immediately, and are thus much better prepared (and lined up) for your inevitable crash landing.
2. During the emergency landing itself. The occupants seem to stand a much better chance of survival when they have a heavy engine in the front of the aircraft pushing tree limbs out of the way & punching through fences & whatnot... whereas a in a multi-engine aircraft theres little more than a sheet of aluminum & some instruments between you & whatever you might hit.
3. Multi-engine aircraft generally fly faster... which means they crash faster too.
I used to rent (really cheap) an old Cessna 150 commuter. It ran like hell, nothing on it worked that wasnt required by law... it got the bare legal minimums of maintenance & care... but it wasnt that big a deal since if you did crash, you'd do it at 35mph. I couldve landed that thing cross-ways in a 2 car driveway & the wife wouldnt even have to move her car, so it was okay that it sometimes sputtered & coughed a bit.
Its not hitting the ground that kills you, its hitting the ground -really hard- that kills you.