Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
UAV's wouldn't have these issues because they are not human and potentially distracted.
Hi Sys. Are you advocating that there be no pilot/s on board to monitor the flight? Passengers board, press the button and away we go? Or someone sits and just monitors the system, but is not a pilot? In a way don't we already have some of this technology? Wasn't the Trident the first to pioneer automated landings?
Interesting. I can see pros and cons in what you're saying.
Pro. The technology is in control but the idiot pilot/technician overrides it and crashes. In this recent case the pilot ignored something like 15 audible warnings...
Garuda Indonesia Flight 200 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Con. The technology fails, and there's no pilot to take control and save the day. (I have an image of Hal from 2001 deliberately sending the passengers to their doom).
If I had the time today I could dig up a fewYu have to pick out situations where a manned aircraft was saved by the crew which a UAV would have been lost.
TrueUAV is piloted remotely and anything human or designed by human has an inbuilt idiot factor which just is.
Syscom's point is well taken and certainly there is an inherent reduction in human factors in operating UAVs. But the human factors issues are not gone, just changed. And changed into areas that do not have the historical precedent from which to assess best practices and implement mitigation strategies.
This is the one that always comes to mind first.
___________________________________________________________
AIRFORCE TIMES
Pilot error blamed in August Predator crash
By Bruce Rolfsen - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Jan 26, 2007 13:28:13 EST
The crash of a remote-controlled MQ-1 Predator on Aug. 3 at Creech Air Force Base, Nev., resulted from a civilian contract pilot pushing the wrong button, an Air Force accident investigation board concluded in a report issued Thursday. The aircraft was assigned the Predator formal training unit, the 11th Reconnaissance Squadron at Creech.
As the aircraft flew near the base at an altitude of about 500 feet, the pilot pressed the button he thought would retract the airplane's landing gear. Instead, the button shut down the engine.
The pilot couldn't restart the motor. He tried to steer the powerless plane to a runway, but the propeller-driven plane crashed. The total cost of the damage was pegged at $1.4 million.
In the end though, this was human error, not UAV error.
UAV's wouldn't have these issues because they are not human and potentially distracted.
Who's operating the UAV????In the end though, this was human error, not UAV error.
The aircraft software could also be written to disallow an engine shutoff when there are no detectable problems and the altitude is less than "X" feet.
I'm just pointing out that airplanes crash because of stupid things the pilots and/or flight crew do.
Who's operating the UAV????
Read the posts I put up - and a guarantee you there were PLENTY of UAV crashes due to operator error - more than we'll know because some of the programs were classified.
So you encounter a control problem where you have to shut down the engine less than "x" feet and you can't - so you let the aircraft fly away, possibly into civilian airspace or into a populated area where it could crash and kill someone?
I don't think "software" is directly controlling operator functions like landing gear operations and engine shutdown unless there are pre-programmed parameters that prohibit such operations in certain flight modes (flap and landing gear operation speeds, etc.) It sounds like the aircraft was in a window to allow that to happen.
Same could hold true for a manned aircraftIf it was a human that caused the crash, its their fault, not the UAV itself. The more you automate, the lower the probability of human induced problems.
What type of on board computer? How much memory? How much authority are you going to give the computer over the UAV operator????The on board computer will detect problems and allow an engine shutdown. If there are no problems, then there is no reason to shutdown the engine. Come on flyboy, I know you have seen decision tree's and how software is written around them.
Could have, would have, should have - again you're coming up with stuff that is very ambiguous at best.I would think so. But a properly written program would disallow certein commands if conditions A, B, C etc are not met. Hey, it could have been a simple training flight where the ground personell were being trained for certein scenario's, and this happened.
And again, what type of automatic cockpit? Look at the other UAV failures and some of them occurred in an "automatic" mode as you state. You're trying apply technology that isn't there and isn't practical.My point is, this was a preventable accident where the pilot or controller was solely at fault. An automated cockpit would not have allowed this to happen.
If it was a human that caused the crash, its their fault, not the UAV itself. .
My point is, this was a preventable accident where the pilot or controller was solely at fault. An automated cockpit would not have allowed this to happen.
My point is, this was a preventable accident where the pilot or controller was solely at fault. An automated cockpit would not have allowed this to happen.
Again Sys I ask this question:
Cars crash due to human error. Should we stop driving cars, or start using UMV's (Unmanned Motor Vehicles)?
So automated cockpits can not fail? What do you do when it fails?
But the failure points for an automated cockpit are far fewer than manned cockpits, simply because the human element is taken out..
A simple equation for you:
w = number of crashes soley due to pilot error
x = number of crashes due to a combination of human error and mechanical failure
y= number of crashes due to mechanical failure only.
z = number of crashes due to events beyond the control of the AC or pilot (like bird strikes)
N = w+x+y+z.
Now if we eliminate variable w, already we are < N
and factor in part of x, in which pilot error made a bad situation worse, or was the primary cause of the crash, then "N" is even lower..
But it is still obvious that the UAV would be inherently safer than a manned AC. And even if there is an external operator flying the UAV, there's nothing complicated in writing "do not do or allow" software to be written to prevent accidents, or operating the AC out of its limits.
Obvious? How can you make that claim with no real data to back up your statement? Do you have UAV operational statisitcs?Would a UAV that's automated to a high degree, with properly tested software to accommodate failures, could still crash? Yes, statistically it will still happen. But it is still obvious that the UAV would be inherently safer than a manned AC
And describe SPECIFICALLY those "do not do or allow" parameters.And even if there is an external operator flying the UAV, there's nothing complicated in writing "do not do or allow" software to be written to prevent accidents, or operating the AC out of its limits.