Home Slamming Down Under; Drone Slamming in AZ

"Ya know Lune,
instead of continually posting more of your unfounded nonsense here,
why don't you propose a "home slamming" to your
wife/girlfriend/significant other. She'd like that - and it would keep
your mind off of all those dangerous little planes waiting to crash
into your house."

It would be wife... LOL. That was funny!

VLJs: FAA plan is to put thousands of these into the air, and mix them in
with the old GA fleet. Then, sprinkle in a bunch of basically untrained
LSA pilots. (Read an article in GA news that a company is offering a
program to get an LSA license in a week. Damn: that's less time than it
takes to learn to drive a car!!!)

This is not the FAA PLAN... this is the aviation industry's plan

BT

But, given your criticisms, I contacted an expert: Bill Mulcahy.

He agrees with me: slammings will become more frequent as more planes
flown by GA pilots are pushed into the air by the FAA.

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
But, given your criticisms, I contacted an expert: Bill Mulcahy.

He agrees with me: slammings will become more frequent as more planes
flown by GA pilots are pushed into the air by the FAA.


Planes aren't pushed into the air by the FAA. They're pushed into the air by
money.

-----Original Message-----
From: Skylune ]
Posted At: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 8:35 AM
Posted To: rec.aviation.piloting
Conversation: Home Slamming Down Under; Drone Slamming in AZ
Subject: Home Slamming Down Under; Drone Slamming in AZ

But, given your criticisms, I contacted an expert: Bill Mulcahy.

He agrees with me: slammings will become more frequent as more planes
flown by GA pilots are pushed into the air by the FAA.

I'm glad someone's gonna push...this damn avgas is getting way too
expensive.

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
First article covers small plane that SLAMMED into a house in Austriala.
Second covers drone that SLAMMED into a hillside near some homes. Seems
that slamming is spreading to other countries and newer forms of aviation.
Should be really interesting when the VLJs get in on the action!



Yes the news media is all about their buzz words. I once had a News Director
tell the staff that if they used the phrase "looks like a war zone" there
had better be video of bullet holes.

Sure enough I got to cover a shooting in the local 'hood a day or two after
and even though the war zone comment wasn't really accurate I just couldn't
resist.

Our fear of UAVs may be well founded:



On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 08:53:32 -0400, "Skylune"
wrote in
outaviation.com:


http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...s-Side-ON.html

Crash stirs debate on drone safety

Alan Levin
USA Today
Aug. 7, 2006 08:30 AM


The explosion nearly jolted Barbara Trent out of bed. At first she
thought someone had bombed the high-desert scrubland where she lives
in southern Arizona.

When daylight arrived a few hours later April 25, Trent and her
neighbors realized that what they heard wasn't a bomb at all. Instead,
an unmanned drone the government uses to monitor the nearby Mexican
border had slammed into a hillside near several homes.

The Predator B, which weighs as much as 10,500 pounds and has a
wingspan of 66 feet, had been crippled when its operator accidentally
switched off its engine. It glided as close as 100 feet above two
homes before striking the ground, says Tom Duggin, the owner of one of
the houses. advertisement

"I was very, very concerned," says Trent, whose house is about 1,000
feet from the crash site. "If it had hit my house, I'd be dead."

Flight issues

The crash of the Customs and Border Protection plane has been a
catalyst heating up the debate over whether it is safe to operate
unmanned aircraft in the nation's airways.

Thousands of unmanned aerial vehicles regularly ply the skies above
the war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. As pressure grows to put the
UAVs to use in the United States, federal officials and aviation
industry representatives are conducting highly technical discussions
on how unmanned aircraft should be regulated.

The debate also addresses the philosophy of what it means to fly. In a
sense, UAVs are the first example of robot-like devices being allowed
to roam the earth, says Massachusetts Institute of Technology aviation
professor John Hansman.

The questions they raise are profound. Can a machine replace the
skills of a veteran pilot? If there are no people aboard, should the
safety standards developed over the past 100 years for aircraft be
eased? Should a human controlling a drone from a desktop computer be
subject to the same standards as a traditional pilot?

"The increased use of unmanned aircraft by (the military) is certainly
challenging some of the long-held beliefs of organizations that have
worked aviation safety for a long time," says Dyke Weatherington, who
oversees UAV procurement at the Pentagon.

Safety precautions

In hearings before the House Aviation Subcommittee in March, Michael
Kostelnik, a retired general who heads Customs and Border Protection's
Air and Marine office, assured lawmakers that the agency's Predator
had robust backup systems to ensure safety.

"This redundant system works on all levels, from sensors to the flight
computer, and provides a triple-check system to protect the vehicle
and others in the airspace," said Kostelnik's written testimony.
....

Your "fears" had nothing to do with house slamming.

Rather, they had to do with compatibility with GA.

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 11:45:46 -0400, "Skylune"
wrote in
outaviation.com:

Your "fears" had nothing to do with house slamming.

Very good. Why you should bring up that fact, given the change in
message subject, is puzzling however.

Rather, they had to do with compatibility with GA.

Well done. You're catching on.


What I want to know, is if the "pilot" of the UAV that violated its
ATC clearance will face FAA administrative action? If not, why not?

Will General Atomics have its ability to launch its UAVs in the NAS
revoked until it can assure that its products will not endanger
citizens?

What will it take to get the attention of retired General Kostelnik,
now a bureaucrat, focused on air safety instead of his relationship
with General Atomics? Termination?


Safety precautions

In hearings before the House Aviation Subcommittee in March,
Michael Kostelnik, a retired general who heads Customs and Border
Protection's Air and Marine office, assured lawmakers that the
agency's Predator had robust backup systems to ensure safety.

"This redundant system works on all levels, from sensors to the
flight computer, and provides a triple-check system to protect the
vehicle and others in the airspace," said Kostelnik's written
testimony.

In an interview last week, Kostelnik said the crash about 30 miles
from Nogales had not changed his mind. He and the manufacturer of
the Predator, General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, blame the
pilot of the drone for the accident. He worked for General
Atomics, which flew the Predator under contract with the
government.

The pilot told investigators from the National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB) that his control panel froze up. When he
switched to a second control station, he didn't notice that it was
set to shut off the plane's fuel. The switch cut off the
Predator's engine.

The drone had been given permission to fly at 14,000 to 16,000
feet, an area that was closed to other planes. After the engine
quit, it drifted until it struck the ground.

John Porter, manager of business development at General Atomics,
defended the control station's design and said the accident did
not reveal any safety issues with the plane. Kostelnik said he
hopes to have a replacement Predator flying soon and the agency
wants to buy additional Predators.

The real test for UAV's will be the first lawsuit against the
manufacturer and the operator when one kills someone.