UAV Crash in Arizona (Long)

[Mike the Strike]

Details of the Predator UAV crash in Arizona have just been released.
Currently two of these pilotless 66-foot wing-span beasts are flying
along the Arizona border as part of border patrols and a third will be
added next year. Some of us local pilots are underwhelmed.

The crash resulted from loss of control after the ground computer-
control console locked up. Reportedly, two identical consoles are
used, one for the aircraft controls and one for the surveillance
equipment. The control for the throttle on one console is identical to
the control for the camera iris on the other. After the main console
locked up, the pilot switched control from one console to the other
without checking that the controls were matched. Since the iris was
closed, the throttle shut down and the engine quit.

The Predator then descended below the minimum altitude for the C-band
communications link, which was lost. The aircraft then turned north
into Arizona and waited for further commands. Backup commands can
also be sent by Iridium satellite. Unfortunately, on loss of engine
power, the Predator begins shutting down electrical systems to
conserve power. And yes indeed, the Iridium communications is one of
the first to be shut down!

The out-of-control and powerless Predator then glided into an area of
upscale ranch homes near Tubac, about 12 miles north of the Arizona/
Mexico border, where it crashed in the backyard of a large house,
missing it and a neighbor by just a few hundred feet.(The FAA report
claims it crashed in sparsely populated terrain, but failed to mention
that it just missed a group of houses). During its descent, ATC
closed off large chunks of airspace below 15,000 feet as they didn't
know where the lost aircraft was or its heading. From primary radar
returns, at one point it was considered possible that it would affect
Tucson International airspace.

The Predator controls appear to violate a lot of good design
principles - in particular, that the intelligence should be in the
machine, not the operator. I can see how a tired operator at 3:00 AM
can easily hit the wrong button when the design makes it so easy.
Losses of these in active war zones from equipment malfunctions and
pilot errors are unsurprisingly quite a lot higher.

It may also come as no surprise that these aircraft have no
airworthiness certificate and are being flown under a special waiver
"in the national interest".

Why is this posted on a glider forum?

Arizona has a lot of military airspace and they are trying to grab
more. To operate the Predators and similar flying disasters, more
airspace is being commandeered, a big chunk of it in some of our best
soaring country. The Predator crashed about five miles from one of
most used southern-Arizona turnpoints.

In my view, too much money is being spent on technical solutions to a
political problem and I am particularly concerned about the further
grabbing of airspace for this ineffective and horrendously expensive
form of border patrol.

Check the NTSB report here:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20060509X00531&ntsbno=CHI06MA121&akey=1

Mike

[Bob Kuykendall]

Wow, that's an eye opener. A bunch of contractors are swapping
processor cards, rebooting computers, power-cycling whole racks of
gear, and calling on their cell phones for backup. You'd think that
Yahoo or google.com had come up with a 404 or the like. Except:

> The Predator B is approximately 36 feet in length with
> a wingspan of 66 feet. The maximum gross weight is
> 10,000 pounds...

> ...The aircraft total fuel capacity was 3,920 pounds...

When eBay goes down, it doesn't land in folks' back yards. When it's
up, it doesn't consume vast blocks of airspace. And when you pull the
plug it definitely sinks at less than 1 fps.

Bob K.

[bagmaker]

Thankyou, Mr Strike, for the shortened view, the actual report is indeed heavy going!
Again we see USAF big brother at his not-responsible best. Fortunately it wasnt an Italian chair lift this time.

The fact that the operators are referred to as "Pilots" is alarming enough. When I dive my kids toy sub through her bathtub remotely, am I now a sub-mariner? Apparently so!

Dont be assuming these things are just looking at border patrols, either, they are being used to shoot at people in war theatre around the globe, very effectively.

One can only put 2 and 2 together to figure that if a UAV was met in the air by a glider that its natural programming will (if not now, soon enough) have the UAV shoot us out of the sky.

Jump up and down, write letters, complain.

Thanks again, Mr Strike, if I look back on all the scare mongering about the Soviet Union fed to us over the last 40 years, this kind of thing appears alarmingly similar.

Or is it the Terminator movies?

More sleepless nights.

Bagmaker

[Bob]

Mike the Strike wrote:
> Details of the Predator UAV crash in Arizona have just been released.
> Currently two of these pilotless 66-foot wing-span beasts are flying
> along the Arizona border as part of border patrols and a third will be
> added next year. Some of us local pilots are underwhelmed.
>
> The crash resulted from loss of control after the ground computer-
> control console locked up. Reportedly, two identical consoles are
> used, one for the aircraft controls and one for the surveillance
> equipment. The control for the throttle on one console is identical to
> the control for the camera iris on the other. After the main console
> locked up, the pilot switched control from one console to the other
> without checking that the controls were matched. Since the iris was
> closed, the throttle shut down and the engine quit.
>
> The Predator then descended below the minimum altitude for the C-band
> communications link, which was lost. The aircraft then turned north
> into Arizona and waited for further commands. Backup commands can
> also be sent by Iridium satellite. Unfortunately, on loss of engine
> power, the Predator begins shutting down electrical systems to
> conserve power. And yes indeed, the Iridium communications is one of
> the first to be shut down!
>
> The out-of-control and powerless Predator then glided into an area of
> upscale ranch homes near Tubac, about 12 miles north of the Arizona/
> Mexico border, where it crashed in the backyard of a large house,
> missing it and a neighbor by just a few hundred feet.(The FAA report
> claims it crashed in sparsely populated terrain, but failed to mention
> that it just missed a group of houses). During its descent, ATC
> closed off large chunks of airspace below 15,000 feet as they didn't
> know where the lost aircraft was or its heading. From primary radar
> returns, at one point it was considered possible that it would affect
> Tucson International airspace.
>
> The Predator controls appear to violate a lot of good design
> principles - in particular, that the intelligence should be in the
> machine, not the operator. I can see how a tired operator at 3:00 AM
> can easily hit the wrong button when the design makes it so easy.
> Losses of these in active war zones from equipment malfunctions and
> pilot errors are unsurprisingly quite a lot higher.
>
> It may also come as no surprise that these aircraft have no
> airworthiness certificate and are being flown under a special waiver
> "in the national interest".
>
> Why is this posted on a glider forum?
>
> Arizona has a lot of military airspace and they are trying to grab
> more. To operate the Predators and similar flying disasters, more
> airspace is being commandeered, a big chunk of it in some of our best
> soaring country. The Predator crashed about five miles from one of
> most used southern-Arizona turnpoints.
>
> In my view, too much money is being spent on technical solutions to a
> political problem and I am particularly concerned about the further
> grabbing of airspace for this ineffective and horrendously expensive
> form of border patrol.
>
> Check the NTSB report here:
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20060509X00531&ntsbno=CHI06MA121&akey=1
>
> Mike
>

Well, no harm done, at least they didn't mix up the console button with
the one that releases the Hellfire missles!

[john hawkins]

Arizona is not theonly UAV program. see

Submarine Force Tests UAV Technology to Enhance Force Protection
Story Number: NNS050331-02
Release Date: 3/31/2005 2:00:00 PM



By Journalist 2nd Class Christina M. Shaw, Commander, Submarine Force, U.S.
Atlantic Fleet Public Affairs

KINGS BAY, Ga. (NNS) -- The submarine force conducted a demonstration here
in February using a new type of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) to test its
utility for force protection.
During the demonstration, a prototype UAV was launched and controlled by
force protection personnel ashore to search out the waters ahead of the
submarine as it entered port.
The small plane weighing in at approximately five pounds is able to break
down into five pieces and can be stored in a small suitcase, making it
portable and easy to take anywhere it's needed.
"The beauty of UAVs as other military users have found is they are
economical, portable and reliable," said Lt. Cmdr. Tom Armstrong, Commander,
U.S. Naval Submarine Force anti-terrorism force protection officer.
The UAV can be used in a number of different ways, but its primary purpose
for the submarine force would be for reconnaissance and photographic
surveillance to support force protection. The new UAV design is ideal for
stealth, due to its ultra-quiet electric motor and small size.
Another plus comes in the versatility of the vehicle. According to
Armstrong, it can be flown in all kinds of weather and can be launched in a
very unique way.
"It can be flown via Global Positioning System (GPS). We just program what
route we want it to fly and it doesn't matter if it's night or day, in bad
weather or good," he said. "We could launch the UAV from the submarine at
sea or launch it from shore depending upon the available range."
Acquisition of this UAV for submarine force protection is still under
consideration, but Armstrong is optimistic this technology will be a part of
the fleet in the future.
"This affordable surveillance tool offers great potential benefits and
savings to the submarine force, and I hope we'll be able to take advantage
of this great technology soon."
For related news, visit the Commander, Submarine Force U.S. Atlantic Fleet
Navy NewsStand page at www.news.navy.mil/local/sublant.



Great new for those of us who fly down the coast. A GPS controled blind bird
Great.

But don't worry our FAA is protecting us. right?

Has anyone crossposted to rec.aviation.piloting?





"Bob" > wrote in message
. net...
> Mike the Strike wrote:
>> Details of the Predator UAV crash in Arizona have just been released.
snip

> Well, no harm done, at least they didn't mix up the console button with
> the one that releases the Hellfire missles!
>

[[email protected]]

On Oct 19, 9:43 am, Mike the Strike > wrote:
> Details of the Predator UAV crash in Arizona have just been released.
> Currently two of these pilotless 66-foot wing-span beasts are flying
> along the Arizona border as part of border patrols and a third will be
> added next year. Some of us local pilots are underwhelmed.
>
> The crash resulted from loss of control after the ground computer-
> control console locked up. Reportedly, two identical consoles are
> used, one for the aircraft controls and one for the surveillance
> equipment. The control for the throttle on one console is identical to
> the control for the camera iris on the other. After the main console
> locked up, the pilot switched control from one console to the other
> without checking that the controls were matched. Since the iris was
> closed, the throttle shut down and the engine quit.
>
> The Predator then descended below the minimum altitude for the C-band
> communications link, which was lost. The aircraft then turned north
> into Arizona and waited for further commands. Backup commands can
> also be sent by Iridium satellite. Unfortunately, on loss of engine
> power, the Predator begins shutting down electrical systems to
> conserve power. And yes indeed, the Iridium communications is one of
> the first to be shut down!
>
> The out-of-control and powerless Predator then glided into an area of
> upscale ranch homes near Tubac, about 12 miles north of the Arizona/
> Mexico border, where it crashed in the backyard of a large house,
> missing it and a neighbor by just a few hundred feet.(The FAA report
> claims it crashed in sparsely populated terrain, but failed to mention
> that it just missed a group of houses). During its descent, ATC
> closed off large chunks of airspace below 15,000 feet as they didn't
> know where the lost aircraft was or its heading. From primary radar
> returns, at one point it was considered possible that it would affect
> Tucson International airspace.
>
> The Predator controls appear to violate a lot of good design
> principles - in particular, that the intelligence should be in the
> machine, not the operator. I can see how a tired operator at 3:00 AM
> can easily hit the wrong button when the design makes it so easy.
> Losses of these in active war zones from equipment malfunctions and
> pilot errors are unsurprisingly quite a lot higher.
>
> It may also come as no surprise that these aircraft have no
> airworthiness certificate and are being flown under a special waiver
> "in the national interest".
>
> Why is this posted on a glider forum?
>
> Arizona has a lot of military airspace and they are trying to grab
> more. To operate the Predators and similar flying disasters, more
> airspace is being commandeered, a big chunk of it in some of our best
> soaring country. The Predator crashed about five miles from one of
> most used southern-Arizona turnpoints.
>
> In my view, too much money is being spent on technical solutions to a
> political problem and I am particularly concerned about the further
> grabbing of airspace for this ineffective and horrendously expensive
> form of border patrol.
>
> Check the NTSB report here:
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20060509X00531&ntsbno=CHI06...
>
> Mike

You guys are conveniently ignoring, because I know that you know
better, that piloted military a/c have also crashed, including at
largely attended public events such as airshows. And in the USA. The
pilot did not follow procedures and failed to even look at the check
list. How is this different from a manned a/c crash where the same
sequence of events occurred?
I am, however, very sympathetic to any loss of airspace. Join the AOPA
and fight it, but it isn't a UAV only issue. That is far more
effective than a rant on RAS.

Tom

[shawn]

wrote:

snip

>> In my view, too much money is being spent on technical solutions to a
>> political problem and I am particularly concerned about the further
>> grabbing of airspace for this ineffective and horrendously expensive
>> form of border patrol.
>>
>> Check the NTSB report here:
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20060509X00531&ntsbno=CHI06...
>>
>> Mike
>
> You guys are conveniently ignoring, because I know that you know
> better, that piloted military a/c have also crashed, including at
> largely attended public events such as airshows. And in the USA. The
> pilot did not follow procedures and failed to even look at the check
> list. How is this different from a manned a/c crash where the same
> sequence of events occurred?


There is a big difference IMO. The operator is not physically invested
in the outcome of the flight. Pilots crash military aircraft, and many
die. Those who don't are usually injured, sometimes severely in the
crash or ejecting. The UAV operator may run the risk of choking on his
or her Subway sandwich in the event of a mishap, and perhaps have to
seek new employment (maybe at Subway FTM).
Its the difference between "Oh Sh!t" and "Um, does this look right to
you? Hmm, oops."

> I am, however, very sympathetic to any loss of airspace. Join the AOPA
> and fight it, but it isn't a UAV only issue. That is far more
> effective than a rant on RAS.

True but if the rant results in more AOPA members, it was useful.

http://www.aopa.org/


Shawn
AOPA and SSA Member

[Mike the Strike]

> pilot did not follow procedures and failed to even look at the check
> list. How is this different from a manned a/c crash where the same
> sequence of events occurred?

Because it had no airworthiness certificate - we don't let real people
(even the more expendable military) fly in those. If the
airworthiness couldn't be guaranteed, we wouldn't normally let an
aircraft fly.

Following procedures can only go so far. Robust designs minimize the
chance of a mishap. It should be obvious that if you have two
identical buttons, one which snaps a photo and the other that releases
a missile, that the system might ask "are you sure" before
implementing it. The current design is not robust has no margin for
error.

The loss of 100% of the operational UAVs in the Arizona sector in 2006
should be testimony to something!

I have no problem with real pilots doing this job if it's necessary.
I know some who do and it is apparently very effective.

UAVs are a costly boondoggle that provide little border security while
gobbling up money, resources and our airspace.

If we really wanted to protect the border, we'd stick up a big fence
and scatter some land mines around it.

Mike

PS UAVs are coming to the Canadian border too!

[fred]

On Oct 19, 9:47 pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
> > pilot did not follow procedures and failed to even look at the check
> > list. How is this different from a manned a/c crash where the same
> > sequence of events occurred?
>
> Because it had no airworthiness certificate - we don't let real people
> (even the more expendable military) fly in those. If the
> airworthiness couldn't be guaranteed, we wouldn't normally let an
> aircraft fly.
>
> Following procedures can only go so far. Robust designs minimize the
> chance of a mishap. It should be obvious that if you have two
> identical buttons, one which snaps a photo and the other that releases
> a missile, that the system might ask "are you sure" before
> implementing it. The current design is not robust has no margin for
> error.
>
> The loss of 100% of the operational UAVs in the Arizona sector in 2006
> should be testimony to something!
>
> I have no problem with real pilots doing this job if it's necessary.
> I know some who do and it is apparently very effective.
>
> UAVs are a costly boondoggle that provide little border security while
> gobbling up money, resources and our airspace.
>
> If we really wanted to protect the border, we'd stick up a big fence
> and scatter some land mines around it.
>
> Mike
>
> PS UAVs are coming to the Canadian border too!

I like UAVs. I have flown a Predator.. They are the future of
aircraft. Unless you know how they operate and are controlled don't
jump to scary
and poorly reported events. I know a lot of Predator pilots. Many are
flown by glider pilots. They can read an N number 25 miles away.
Have any live piloted aircraft crashed...into homes and killed people
on the ground? Has your computer ever crashed? Things break.
If you have political objections, say so. I want our country protected
from another 9-11 and being absorbed by illegal and dangerous people.
Fence yes, Cameras yes, overseas calls monitored, yes. I am a proud
American, I believe in the bible. So there! Fred Robinson

[Mike the Strike]

You want scary and poorly reported - here's another one for
you........

"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."

Pushing the wrong button seems to be a bit of a problem with this
particular aircraft control system.

Maybe that's why over 25% of Predators in the Iraq and Afghan theaters
are lost to pilot error? That's about double the rate for enemy fire.

Mike

PS: I'm all for keeping dangerous folks out of the USA. I just think
they are more likely to legally fly in from Saudi Arabia on a
scheduled airline flight like the last lot did.

Most Mexicans walking into Arizona just want to pick fruit, milk cows
or mow lawns. And I haven't noticed any spectacular decrease in their
numbers since the UAVs were deployed.

[Mike the Strike]

and how about this.....

"7/6/2005 - LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Va. (AFPN) -- The loss of control
of an MQ-1 Predator unmanned aerial vehicle caused it to run out of
fuel and crash Jan. 14 at a forward-deployed location in Southwest
Asia, Air Force officials said July 6.

The $3.5 million Predator, which belonged to the 15th Reconnaissance
Squadron at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., was destroyed upon impact.
There were no injuries, fatalities or damages to other people,
property or equipment.

The incident occurred when the pilot and sensor operator experienced a
malfunction with their computer control system. Both control stations
were rebooted, but communication links with the aircraft were lost and
never regained. The accident happened about eight and a half hours
into the mission, with the aircraft flying uncontrolled and crashing
about 21 hours into the flight.

According to the Air Combat Command Accident Investigation Board
report, the primary factors leading to the loss of control of the
aircraft and the crash included hardware failure and the aircrew
following incorrect rebooting procedures. (Courtesy of ACC News
Service)"

Malfunction with control system.... communication links lost.....

.....sounds familiar?

Mike

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

Mike the Strike wrote:
>
> Maybe that's why over 25% of Predators in the Iraq and Afghan theaters
> are lost to pilot error? That's about double the rate for enemy fire.
>
It would be interesting to know the crash rate of UAVs per 1000 hours of
air time compared with manned aircraft and even more interested to see
the data classified by failure type.

I have a feeling that a lot of this crashery is due to the "Not Sitting
There" syndrome - if you're in the plane you pat attention to what
you're doing but if its a UAV who cares if it crashes - just launch another.

Declared interest: I want to know more about the reliability of
otherwise of UAV control systems because it seems likely that there's a
link between current transponder consultation in the UK and the future
appearance of swarms of UAVs in class G airspace. Why else would they
want the transponders on balloons and microlights as well as all GA
aircraft and gliders?


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[BT]

> Because it had no airworthiness certificate - we don't let real people
> (even the more expendable military) fly in those. If the
> airworthiness couldn't be guaranteed, we wouldn't normally let an
> aircraft fly.
>

Mike.. the military has a lot of aircraft flying with people in them, that
do not have an airworthiness certificate.

I have 1500 hrs in one.

BT

[Mike the Strike]

On Oct 20, 9:42 pm, "BT" > wrote:
> > Because it had no airworthiness certificate - we don't let real people
> > (even the more expendable military) fly in those. If the
> > airworthiness couldn't be guaranteed, we wouldn't normally let an
> > aircraft fly.
>
> Mike.. the military has a lot of aircraft flying with people in them, that
> do not have an airworthiness certificate.
>
> I have 1500 hrs in one.
>
> BT

OK - I suppose we wouldn't expect a civilian certificate from the
FAA. But I assume the military have some other procedure to make sure
that millions of dollars of our assets aren't scattered over
hillsides?

I did a consulting job some years ago with the military and the
procedures were almost painful. Safety was an over-riding concern and
it slowed things up considerably.

Mike

[Steve Davis]

I suspect that the number of Americans in Arizona murdered
by illegal
aliens this past month is slightly more than the number
of UAV's which
have crashed this year. The amount of money spent
providing free
medical care to illegal aliens would pay for quite
a few Predator factories
and salaries for the pilots who fly them. UAV crews
need to have high
quality training and experience before being deployed
to combat areas
and flying them along the Mexican and Canadian borders
makes a whole
lot more sense, to me, than flying them in Nebraska.
Since U.S.
airspace is owned by the American people I vote for
increased usage of
Predators and other UAV's along our borders and suggest
you keep your
sailplane away from them.
Also, get rid of your illegal alien indentured servants
and hire American
employees.

>OK - I suppose we wouldn't expect a civilian certificate
>from the
>FAA. But I assume the military have some other procedure
>to make
sure
>that millions of dollars of our assets aren't scattered
>over
>hillsides?
>
>I did a consulting job some years ago with the military
>and the
>procedures were almost painful. Safety was an over-riding
>concern
and
>it slowed things up considerably.
>
>Mike
>
>

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

Steve Davis wrote:
> I suspect that the number of Americans in Arizona murdered
> by illegal aliens this past month is slightly more than the number
> of UAV's which have crashed this year.

Absolutely right. Our homegrown murderers already kill plenty, and they
don't need any competition!

> The amount of money spent providing free
> medical care to illegal aliens would pay for quite
> a few Predator factories
> and salaries for the pilots who fly them.

Whether or not it is costing 1 million dollars per alien found, we must
spend this money! We can't afford not to have Predator factories and
pilots. Today they are only tracking aliens, tomorrow, the rest of us!


> UAV crews
> need to have high
> quality training and experience before being deployed
> to combat areas
> and flying them along the Mexican and Canadian borders
> makes a whole
> lot more sense, to me, than flying them in Nebraska.

The high quality of the training provided is amply documented by the
NTSB report. Imagine the skill and daring at work as the highly paid
pilot and his instructor rebooted the operator consoles and scratched
their heads!

> Since U.S.
> airspace is owned by the American people I vote for
> increased usage of
> Predators and other UAV's along our borders and suggest
> you keep your
> sailplane away from them.

You must have sold yours 8^)

> Also, get rid of your illegal alien indentured servants
> and hire American
> employees.

Yeah, leave the hiring of illegal immigrants to American corporations
where they belong!

Another loyal American...

[Eric Greenwell]

Steve Davis wrote:

> airspace is owned by the American people I vote for increased usage
> of Predators and other UAV's along our borders and suggest you keep
> your sailplane away from them.

It's not just sailplane pilots that are concerned about UAVs. Some of
the other owners of the airspace are plenty concerned: From the AOPA
"ePilot" bulleting (10/19):

> NTSB VALIDATES AOPA'S CONCERNS ABOUT UNMANNED AIRCRAFT OPS What
> standards apply to unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) design and
> certification? UAV "pilot" training? Integration into the National
> Airspace System? AOPA has repeatedly voiced these concerns to the
> FAA. On Oct. 16, the NTSB highlighted these same concerns and issued
> 22 recommendations after investigating a 2006 UAV accident. Currently
> no FAA certification or regulatory standards exist for UAVs operating
> in the National Airspace System. AOPA believes they should be
> certified to the same level of safety as piloted aircraft. Read more
> on AOPA Online [http://www.aopa.org/epilot/redir.cfm?adid=13323].

UAVs are not just on the border, either. There is a NOTAM for UAV
testing still in effect at the Arlington, OR, airport, an area we
frequently fly near; fortunately, the airspace involved is relatively
small, about the same as a Class D airspace. Testing is done in other
places around the country, of course.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[BT]

> I did a consulting job some years ago with the military and the
> procedures were almost painful. Safety was an over-riding concern and
> it slowed things up considerably.
>
> Mike
>

Yes, so we don't have people and parts splattered all over the country side.

BT

[Steve Davis]

At 03:54 21 October 2007, Marc Ramsey wrote:
>Steve Davis wrote:
>> I suspect that the number of Americans in Arizona
>>murdered
>> by illegal aliens this past month is slightly more
>>than the number
>> of UAV's which have crashed this year.
>
>Absolutely right. Our homegrown murderers already
>kill plenty, and
>they don't need any competition!

We're getting our felons to move to California.
If they agree to plea bargain down to 'Trespassing
on
Agricultural Land,' then their fine can be used for
a ticket
on the California Zephyr. It works pretty well and
lowers
the Amtrack subsidies.

>> The amount of money spent providing free
>> medical care to illegal aliens would pay for quite
>> a few Predator factories
>> and salaries for the pilots who fly them.
>
>Whether or not it is costing 1 million dollars per
>alien found, we must
>spend this money! We can't afford not to have Predator
>factories and
>pilots. Today they are only tracking aliens, tomorrow,
>the rest of us!

I used to have those kinds of thoughts. When I got
30 miles north of
Roswell I took off the foil hat and they went away.


>> UAV crews
>> need to have high
>> quality training and experience before being deployed
>> to combat areas
>> and flying them along the Mexican and Canadian borders
>> makes a whole
>> lot more sense, to me, than flying them in Nebraska.
>
>The high quality of the training provided is amply
>documented by the
>NTSB report. Imagine the skill and daring at work
>as the highly paid
>pilot and his instructor rebooted the operator consoles
>and scratched
>their heads!

Or the highly trained airline pilot who forgot to lower
their flaps or took
off from the wrong runway or the GA pilot who ran out
of gas because he
forgot to check. Oops.
Yea, the UAV crashed within 12 miles of a high
rent neighborhood but i'll bet the residents are more
concerned with the
rising cost of getting their pools cleaned than getting
beaned by a UAV.

>> Since U.S.
>> airspace is owned by the American people I vote for
>> increased usage of
>> Predators and other UAV's along our borders and suggest
>> you keep your
>> sailplane away from them.
>
>You must have sold yours 8^)

No, but I don't live near the border.

>> Also, get rid of your illegal alien indentured servants
>> and hire American
>> employees.
>
>Yeah, leave the hiring of illegal immigrants to American
>corporations
>where they belong!

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/
0,1299,DRMN_15_5720596,00.html

Cut and paste both lines. Its an article about a defense
contractor which
recently got raided by ICE and the DCIS.

[[email protected][_2_]]

Roll on Terminator 2 & Skynet!

Why needs people to rule the world.

Great name though - Predator. Chasing you down wherever you are.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Steve Davis" > wrote in message
...
<...>
> I used to have those kinds of thoughts. When I got
> 30 miles north of
> Roswell I took off the foil hat and they went away.
<...>


http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[shawn]

Steve Davis wrote:

snip

>>> Also, get rid of your illegal alien indentured servants
>>> and hire American
>>> employees.
>> Yeah, leave the hiring of illegal immigrants to American
>> corporations
>> where they belong!
>
> http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/
> 0,1299,DRMN_15_5720596,00.html
>
> Cut and paste both lines. Its an article about a defense
> contractor which
> recently got raided by ICE and the DCIS.


Three miles from my house, that caught my attention. The VP of R&D is
from China. Just speculating, but perhaps the gubument started getting
nervous about him, or the Korean CEO?

A little more info:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5723600,00.html


Shawn

[[email protected]]

On Oct 19, 10:47 pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
>
snip

Because it had no airworthiness certificate - we don't let real people
(even the more expendable military) fly in those. If the
airworthiness couldn't be guaranteed, we wouldn't normally let an
aircraft fly.

snip

Lets think about this. No approved type certicate, does this sound
familar? We should go to the FAA and demand all aircraft that lack
approved type certificates be grounded because they are obviously
unsafe. How many sailplanes fly under experimental certificates?
Lots. Homebuilts of course and quite a few Libelles, discuses and
LS-3s since the original owners imported them before they received
approval from the FAA. I imagine if the experimental certificates
were cancelled you could eventually get an approved type certificate
after some paperwork and maybe retrofitting some equipment required by
the ATC. Of course some of the open class ship would be out of luck
since they never received an ATC as well as others. Wouldn't it be
better to figure out what safety issues the Predator has,if any, and
campaign to have them fixed?

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

wrote:
> Lets think about this. No approved type certicate, does this sound
> familar? We should go to the FAA and demand all aircraft that lack
> approved type certificates be grounded because they are obviously
> unsafe. How many sailplanes fly under experimental certificates?
> Lots. Homebuilts of course and quite a few Libelles, discuses and
> LS-3s since the original owners imported them before they received
> approval from the FAA. I imagine if the experimental certificates
> were cancelled you could eventually get an approved type certificate
> after some paperwork and maybe retrofitting some equipment required by
> the ATC. Of course some of the open class ship would be out of luck
> since they never received an ATC as well as others. Wouldn't it be
> better to figure out what safety issues the Predator has,if any, and
> campaign to have them fixed?

According to the NTSB report, the Predator had no airworthiness
certificate whatsoever and was flying on an FAA waiver. All of the
gliders discussed above fly with special airworthiness certificates.
The situations are simply not comparable.

Several smaller companies are having a great deal of difficulty getting
public use (law enforcement, search and rescue, etc.) airworthiness
certificates for UAVs which are in many cases no larger than your
typical model airplane. The DHS and a large defense contractor can
simply invoke "national security", which allows them to get away with
behavior that would be quite illegal for anyone else...

Marc

[Andy[_1_]]

On Oct 21, 4:03 am, "
> wrote:
> Roll on Terminator 2 & Skynet!

What Skynet? I worked on Skynet 4 over 20 years ago!

Andy

[bagmaker]

And what recourse would our loved ones have against the "pilots" employed by these "defence contractors" in the name of "national security" when their glorified model aircraft has a mid-air with one of us, a GA pilot or some long-hair skidding about in his para-glider? (sorry long-hairs)
No doubt the spinners would have us in government airspace, (bull) too high or low (crap) over or near some newly invented anti-terrorist establishment. (yeah, right, how remotely desert was this housing estate?)

This is all rubbish, folks, and we need to let people know, as aviators, that the reasons do not add up to the perceived threats.

Can anyone here imagine a motorised vehicle on the freeways being sold to us in a similar way? Would that be acceptable?

No. And duh!

Get the hell out of my sky, I can't trust someone I can't sue.

Bagger

[Steve Davis]

>Three miles from my house, that caught my attention.
> The VP of R&D
>is from China. Just speculating, but perhaps the gubument
>started
>getting nervous about him, or the Korean CEO?

No, the Clinton administration railroaded Wen Ho Lee
to deflect
public concern from the fact that they had been allowing
a large
amount of aircraft, missile and perhaps nuclear technology
transfers
to China. After that episode, the Asian community is
very sensitive to
the possibility of knee-jerk profiling and scapegoating
by the
government. A very large percentage of engineers in
American
industry are Asian and the Wen Ho Lee episode really
pi**ed them
off. It is 'possible' however that a company which
does a lot
of very tiny, precise and tedious assembly and adhesive
work could
find that bringing a group of women over from China,
keeping them
cloistered, and shipping back any who complained about
the conditions
worked better than hiring Americans to do that work.
If a defense
contractor did this it would be a matter for both ICE
and the DCIS to
investigate.

>A little more info:
>http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/
0,1299,DRMN_15_5723600,00.html
>Shawn

[[email protected]]

>can
> simply invoke "national security", which allows them to get away with
> behavior that would be quite illegal for anyone else...
>
> Marc

I think I have heard of this being done.

Steve
A loyal American

[J a c k[_2_]]

Steve Davis wrote:


> Since U.S. airspace is owned by the American people I vote for
> increased usage of Predators and other UAV's along our borders and suggest
> you keep your sailplane away from them.

Sure thing, Stevie. Just let us know where these devices are. Make them
electronically, visually, or procedurally visible and/or predictable and
we will be able to avoid them. Or make the drug/alien "war" real by
deploying troops where they would do some good.



> Also, get rid of your illegal alien indentured servants
> and hire American employees.

Are you applying for a landscaping, roofing, paving, or domestic service
job?



Jack