Unmanned Aircraft Accident Investigation
Yesterday, the NTSB cited a wide range of safety issues as a result of its first investigation of an unmanned aircraft accident (To read the press release click here). NTSB chairman Mark V. Rosenker said the recommendations address “a wide range of safety issues involving the civilian use of unmanned aircraft.”
The investigation involved the April 25, 2006 accident in which a turboprop-powered Predator B operated on a surveillance mission by the United States Customs and Border Protection (CPB) crashed in a sparsely populated residential area near Nogales, Arizona.
I found several things interesting about the report. First of all, there was no “cockpit” voice recorder. Even though pilots of UAVs are in remote control stations, there are no recorders that can give investigators a record of communications between each other, other pilots and air traffic control. It makes sense that these requirements should extend to UAVs.
Second, the NTSB determined that the probable cause of the accident was the pilot’s failure to use checklist procedures when switching operational control from a console that had become inoperable due to a “lockup” condition, which resulted in the fuel valve inadvertently being shut off and the subsequent total loss of engine power.
The NTSB discovered that the “lockup” condition had been experienced before, but not corrected.
The FAA would not let any other aircraft take off with a known problem with the pilot’s control system. Why would anyone think it was OK to do so with an unmanned aircraft?
We shouldn’t allow a lower level of maintenance standards on unmanned aircraft. Equally important, we should not allow a lower level of operational procedures or airworthiness requirements.
You can read the whole report here.
Thanks for reading,
Joe Escobar
[…] Original post by Jescobar […]
I doubt that there will be any heated rush to do much about regulating UAVs. Large ones are relatively rare and only operated by the government. Small ones are just model airplanes carrying extra equipment. Plus nobody cares about the safety of a pilotless aircraft flying over remote areas, it just doesn’t make news. The FAA will likely wait for a high profile accident and then overeact, like they have always done in the past.
well geez joe, if only they had it worked on in queretro mexico, your new favorite fbo/repair facility…
I hope that kc’s remarks are not indicative of an A&P’s lax attitude towards safety! It is well known that most accidents are pilot error and even though this may not be a serious problem, someone flyimg in the vicinity could be killed by such an incident! Safety is the number 1 concern of anyone flying, be it a large UAV or a small one that smashes through an engine or windshield! kc would certainly think so if he were flyimg in an aircraft
I would say that safety is a state of mind and that money was the number one concern of anyone, doing anything, anywhere.
KC, you are way off base in your assessment of priorities. The predator is not based on a low-bid for construction, operation or maintenance. This is a sole-source aircraft developed exclusively for the U.S. government by General Atomics, which also operates and maintains these devices in the civilian world as sole source contractor. The lack of FAA oversight of this entire process is problematical and likely a major contributing factor in the crash. Your statement that “money is the number one concern of anyone, doing anything, anywhere” is not worthy of an A&P mechanic. If the majority of AMT’s readers felt as you do, we’d all be in other industries. The fact that we contribute to the safety of others, not the princely salary, is our number one concern. It should also be yours.