Just when you didn’t think things could get any more nonsensical, here’s a story that makes you just shake your head with frustration.
Now, I’ll caveat this by saying I’m welcome to be convinced otherwise, but it strikes me as downright stupid that the Air Force insists on having Airmen pilot their Predators all the way to touchdown.
Now, I can understand having a close-tethered “man-in-the-loop” for weapons releases or snap recon taskers, but my reporting on automatic landing systems leads me to believe that there’s no reason whatsoever to have pilots landing drones from Nevada (or wherever else they’re remotely piloting those drones) every time.
Colin reports in his interview with outgoing AT&L chief John Young that the Pentagon purchasing czar was miffed that the Air Force declined to retrofit their Predators with autonomous landing systems. He cites dozens of crashes that might have been avoided had the service embraced the system.
Youngs spokesman, Chris Isleib, later sent an email to reporters slightly changing the numbers. “Since 1994 the Air Force has procured 195 Predators. 65 have been lost due to Class A mishaps,” he said. Isleib added that of the 65 mishaps, 36 percent are laid at the door of human error and “many of those attributable to ground station problems.” About 15 percent of the total was destroyed during the landing phase, Isleib clarified in his email.
The Army, on the other hand, typically uses ALS for their Warrior drones and has a lower casualty rate, Colin reports.
Is this a direct causal relationship? I’m sure there are mitigating circumstances and opinions on the matter with some of the mishaps. But it seems to me a needless attempt to cling to the Red Scarf mentality of a service that’s evolving more and more into a digital force of systems operators than the swashbuckling zoomies of yore — and that’s really not a bad thing at all.
Let’s hope there’s some other logical and practical reason than tradition here, but I’m worried Occam’s Razor is at play.
– Christian
{ 22 comments… read them below or add one }
Sounds like the same AF general who said no to auto landing was in charge of AF nukes. Where do they find these guys You’d think the AF could find someone in their ranks with some common sense!
Wrong.
All aircraft crashes are caused by human error. My college prof told me so.
I was under the impression that the station where the Predator is based handled take off and landing.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/predator6.htm
That would really be something if the Army is truly flying its Predator derived Warrior with less mishaps than the AF.
I’m not sure I’d want to land anything on a satellite delay. :)
That would really be something if the Army is truly flying its Predator derived Warrior with less mishaps than the AF.
Posted by: Drake1 at April 28, 2009 03:35 PM
They would never hear the end of it.
Als owhy cant they just link a few predators together in one control room let a couple guys watch over like 9 of the things and when a strike is called in or when more pilots are necessary than are there just have some on stand bye?
“I’m not sure I’d want to land anything on a satellite delay. :)”
The (AF)typically use a local ground station for take off and landing. The rest of the mission is flown by CONUS pilots via a Ku link.
More forward AF thinking….I honestly think they will fight handing over controls of any drone or aircraft as long as they can. After all, how will all the fighter jocks get all their shiny little medals??
Out of 65 crashes, only 3 have been caused by human error during the landing phase. No more than what would likely have resulted with autonomous landing systems.
Christian, we keep our Airmen behind every move the UAVs make for a reason.
Good Afternoon Christian,
The Army agrees with you Christian, see new MOS 98H for E-5′s and E-6′s, and the formation of the 14th. Signal Regiment at Ft. Sill Ok.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
“Out of 65 crashes, only 3 have been caused by human error during the landing phase. No more than what would likely have resulted with autonomous landing systems.” I find that hard to believe. So were all other 62 crashes due to pure mechanical failure? Doubtful.
Read this article “http://www.military.com/news/article/human-error-cited-in-most-uav-crashes.html” Here’s a quote “But an Air Force researcher has found that operator mistakes are responsible for a growing number of Predator mishaps in recent years, a period in which the drones have been flown by increasingly inexperienced crews.” Hmmm…. Oh, here’s another one…”http://www.system-safety.org/ejss/livingston.php”
I know when DHS lost their Pred B it was due to pilot error…
“Christian, we keep our Airmen behind every move the UAVs make for a reason.” Yeah, it’s called institutional stubborness….
The USAF needs to see the writing on the wall, the days of piloted aircraft are numbered.
No mystery here.
The Predator is at its heart still relatively a VERY simple system compared to Global Hawk or manned aircraft.
It is IMHO best described as the biggest of the ‘simple’ UAVs, and it was a simple system before the AF ‘operators’ ever laid eyes on it. The AF’s Predator in concept, design and potential was pretty well defined before they ever touched one.
The evolution of this simple system into a slightly more complex system for operational reasons has not risen to the level of developing a completely new mission management, navigation and flight control system with sufficient redundency and robustness to allow it to operate more ‘hands off’ than it does to-date. That would cost $. The same $ half the ‘out’ crowd around here bi***es and moans about on the $ spent on more complex systems.
I’ll also guess (educated) the operational losses due to landing mishaps had more to do with the Predator A’s inverted ruddervator than anything else and would expect the distribution of such mishaps to reflect more ‘A’ losses.
BTW: It looks like it is (once again) an approriate time to quote my UAV/RPV Controller instructor (circa 1983 – Quarite Optimum!):
“I take you guys (enlisted) 6 mistakes high before I let you take over for the first time. I take them (rated meat servos, aka pilots) 12 mistakes high, because they can make 6 mistakes before I can even take it back from them.”
BTW anyone seen the article of the new jet powered predator. can only stay in flight for 23 hrs instead of 25 like the reaper but it can cruise 100mph faster and has a internal bomb bay
The AF has a grand history, but objectively, its days are numbered when it comes to the combat support component. It would be nice if they would show some graciousness and just let the army take control of anything under 20,000ft (or whatever).
The Army, rightly so, is usurping the functions of the air force by the use of more cost and combat effective tools, in particular, ground-based smart weapons. Compare the cost effectiveness, speed, mobility and combat responsiveness of new weapons like GLMRS or soon NLOS-LS to that of training, equipping, fueling, repairing and launching a combat pilot and aircraft. This is to say nothing of UAVs, which are doing a much better job of supporting the troops under Army control due to a shorter C3I loop, squad-lvl UAVs, etc. The advent of the Small Diameter Bomb will give UAVs the same combat power as much larger manned aircraft at far less cost. I’m just waiting for someone in the Army to figure out that they should just load the tip of an ATACMS with 20+ SDBs. Fire 50 ATACMs and you knock out 1000 targets. The Army could shut-down all key infrastructure targets in a country in 15 mins right from the bivouac. And do it all at a fraction of the cost.
And the air force brass realizes their purpose in the air is quickly shrinking which is why they’ve shifted their focus toward the space and cyberspace arena to continue to justify their budget.
Hell, the Navy is doing a better job than the AF in controlling air space. It was the Navy that shot down the spook satellite. AEGIS is the world’s keystone air defense system.
In the grand scheme of things, the AF dudes shouldn’t feel bad. They’ve done great. The world has changed, there’s just nobody left worth fighting with in the air.
The AF has a grand history, but objectively, its days are numbered when it comes to the combat support component. It would be nice if they would show some graciousness and just let the army take control of anything under 20,000ft (or whatever).
The Army, rightly so, is usurping the functions of the air force by the use of more cost and combat effective tools, in particular, ground-based smart weapons. Compare the cost effectiveness, speed, mobility and combat responsiveness of new weapons like GLMRS or soon NLOS-LS to that of training, equipping, fueling, repairing and launching a combat pilot and aircraft. This is to say nothing of UAVs, which are doing a much better job of supporting the troops under Army control due to a shorter C3I loop, squad-lvl UAVs, etc. The advent of the Small Diameter Bomb will give UAVs the same combat power as much larger manned aircraft at far less cost. I’m just waiting for someone in the Army to figure out that they should just load the tip of an ATACMS with 20+ SDBs. Fire 50 ATACMs and you knock out 1000 targets. The Army could shut-down all key infrastructure targets in a country in 15 mins right from the bivouac. And do it all at a fraction of the cost.
And the air force brass realizes their purpose in the air is quickly shrinking which is why they’ve shifted their focus toward the space and cyberspace arena to continue to justify their budget.
Hell, the Navy is doing a better job than the AF in controlling air space. It was the Navy that shot down the spook satellite. AEGIS is the world’s keystone air defense system.
In the grand scheme of things, the AF dudes shouldn’t feel bad. They’ve done great. The world has changed, there’s just nobody left worth fighting with in the air.
CR: Yeah, I guess I worded it wrong. I was saying it would be ridiculous to think about landing via satellite.
A good article, Christian, and I agree that the Air Force needs to embrace automated landing systems; I’ve heard the microwave-based ones were spot-on. I’ll just say that I think aviation as a whole is fairly resistant to automated landings. Once talked to an airline pilot who said that the only job left for commercial bus drivers is the take-off and landing, and that the systems could be pretty easily enabled to do that too. I think there’s a real fear of obsolescence. Human nature.
There’s a phobia of automated systems being less able to respond (or not respond fast enough) to unique situations.
Could a ATL execute a river landing like Sullenberger? Do a test-off with live aircraft, and if so then I would be sold. However, ATL’s are probably only as good as their programmers, who might not even be pilots. Hence the aversion to trusting flying to a system designed by non-flyers.
15W UAS Operator. Training currently split between Fort Huachuca and Fort Rucker. (All moving to Rucker soon).
98H is Signals Intelligence MOS trained at Fort Sill and has nothing to do with operatintg UAS.
Let’s say for a minute no crashes were caused by human error during take off and landing. Is that really the best use of a pilot’s time? I’m surprised AF isn’t using waypoint navigation or ATL. This would reduce mission cost.
Before Y’all get too excited about ALS try this on a half mile final with autoland.
“W007 sidestep to the parallel for “amber” (emergency declared) traffic 3 miles in trail.”
Pilot in the loop..”OK, down in thirty seconds.”
ALS “?????? Ahh stanby…ahhhhh back in twenty or thirty minutes?”
Good Morning Folks,
I’ve been wanting to respond to Cole and TB arguments here but I would have to go into information that I promised a source I would use till it became public.
Knowing that Cole is pimping for Boeing I just had to wait my time and the time has come. Yesterday the Special Operations Command place a contract with Boeing for $250 million. A saml change contract to be sure but after FCS I’m sure Cole is not his on Boeing list of favorite mouth pieces.
In summary the contract is:To supply “Scan Eagle” UAV’s on a fee-for-service basis to the U.S. Special Operations Command. Boeing will supply both the operators and drones fitted with sensors and cameras to gather video and still images for the Pentagon. Boeing is is said to have a similar arrangement with the U.S. Navy.
I have never been in favor of all the private increasing roll with the military since the 1980′s, I don’t care if it’s in CONUS with gate guards or mess hall or the tactical use of “civilian experts” in the field. Since these practices begun there has developed serious doubt about the loyalty of both the corporation or their employees. Be it former nuclear scientist (Lawrence Livermore) or satellite engineers (Lockheed) who sell information to foreign countries or companies like IBM who are more then willing to include secret DoD work to the Chinese when they sold off their PC unit. Somethings should be kept with those in uniform.
I would think that Project Thor might have something to add on this.
As for TC’s statements. They are correct as of today, but the U.S. Army is a dynamic institution and the 120 “Warriors” on order have yet to find a place in the Army.
Also the Army is showing interest in the new predator ” The Jet Powered Predator C Avenger” with a 3Klbs. vs. 8Clbs. for the prop driven Predator C weapons load.
The Navy and Marines are already juiced because the “Avenger” (named after the wing hinge of the TB of WWII) will be able to launch and recovered from a carrier. A version of the Predator B, prop driven is also being developed that will be able to fly off and be recovered by ah LHD, needless the marines are near orgastic about this.
Now a couple of aviation items to watch. First the Airbus A400, the C-130 is nearing 60 years old and although it has been up dated it is still a WWII design. The C-130 is being worn out in Iraq and Afghanistan and this would be the time for a replacement that fits better for the future as Sec. Gates sees it.
The second item is a Brazilian entry into the Med. Transport area, the Embraer KC390 was introduced on April 14, dod officials were in attendance of this event.. This is a military style jet transport that can use short unimproved runways, be quickly for transport to a tanker, fly by wire and ease of maintenance features, in tother words it is by design to be used in a tactical third world environment. With both the tanker deal and the C-17 not being funded this might be an attractive solution to address both needs.
The current Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton A. Schwartz’s former command was at Scott AFB Ill as head of the U.S. Transportation Command and is fully aware of the shortages of U.S. air lift. With the price of the C-17 above $200 million a copy, I’m sure the KC-390 will be somewhat less expensive, and best of all delivery can start in one year. it appears to be inviting international competition which of course is called capitalism.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
I think in general the military does what it can to maintain technical knowledge/operational experience of their systems so they know HOW to fight a war. The actual men and women in uniform need to be informed customers of these systems and not just their civilian technial advisors. Alot of the decisions AF military personel have to make during wartime and during the aquisition process depends on piloting skills. This will probably still be the case when the AF goes mostly robotic. I don’t think this is an issue of figher jocks and their egos. Its about maintaining a culture of ownership of their overall mission and the skills and systems that enable them to accomplish it.