Flying into trouble? Drones to use US airspace as safety record questioned

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


I'm not convinced that the aircraft in question was on a mission to begin with. Or that it was an Air Force aircraft at the time of the accident. I'm looking at the list of accidents for FY12, which this should be part of, and it's not listed.

I believe that this aircraft was being operated as a test object, by the company in question, which means that we probably won't ever be able to say for sure what happened, because it's going to be extremely difficult to get my hands on the report.
edit on 12/3/2012 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The technology is controlled by the government, and operated by the government. They're built by private companies, and some smaller ones are available for purchase by people other than the government, but they are in the micro UAV size, and are useless for carrying much other than cameras, and are very few and far between.


Zaphod, can you find an accident report confirming the OP's RT sourced description of the crash?

I can find the crash but no reference to anything remotely like the incident RT is describing?



Originally posted by Zcustosmorum

You're trying to tell me that a government who "allowed" an event like 9/11 to happen, as well as a few other high profile blunders, wouldn't allow something like the above described event to happen?

This story cracks me up, particularly this bit:

"One account from April describes a sub-contracted operator launching an $8.9 million MQ-9 Reaper from the runway at the Seychelles International Airport without getting the go-head from the control tower. The same operator then accidentally switched off the engine without noticing and then tried an emergency landing, but did not release the wheels."


I believe Russia Today may be embellishing the story and the OP's jubilation at the write off due to flagrant operator incompetence may be premature.


You're trying to tell me that a government who allowed an event like 9/11 to take place, not too mention a whole list of other high profile blunders, wouldn't have allowed an event like the one described above to take place?


I think there would be a cover up on this also for obvious reasons. To add, I can't verify the journalists source, but I think they would be liable for legal action if the story was false.

More importantly, if anyone with access to reports on air crashes is reading this, can they please message me any information on the Pakistan airliner crash I asked about in the lead thread.
edit on 3-12-2012 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Zcustosmorum
 


It's not so much the suggestion of a cover up, as it's a misunderstanding by the journalist of what the actual AIB report says. I've read some AIB reports that have made me scratch my head, and I lived in that world for almost 30 years.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, because I've read some reports recently of manned aircraft that did some truly bonehead things, such as forgetting to put the landing gear down, but the fact that the Air Force expanded UAVs to include non-pilot candidates as pilots for them, and this article says a civilian contractor doesn't add up. I don't see the Air Force letting non-pilots fly their UAVs, only to turn around and give the mission to a civilian contractor.

Now if this was a test mission being flown by a civilian contractor, that makes a lot more sense, and would explain why it's not listed on the AIB report list, and there's no AIB report for it to be found. It would be an informal report, because the contractor would "own" the airframe for the duration of the testing, and it wouldn't be an Air Force accident, so no AIB report required.

That's why this whole thing doesn't make sense. Either it was an Air Force mission, and there's an AIB report that the reporter got his or her hands on, and I can't find anywhere, or it was a civilian test and there's no AIB report because there wasn't one done. So in this particular incident, something isn't adding up.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
More importantly, if anyone with access to reports on air crashes is reading this, can they please message me any information on the Pakistan airliner crash I asked about in the lead thread.
edit on 3-12-2012 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)


A fuel tank caught fire on final approach, then exploded in midair. It was possibly hit by lighting, as there was a severe thunderstorm at the time. The report probably won't be released for a year or more, but the pilot radioed the tower and said there was a fire.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
More importantly, if anyone with access to reports on air crashes is reading this, can they please message me any information on the Pakistan airliner crash I asked about in the lead thread.
edit on 3-12-2012 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)


A fuel tank caught fire on final approach, then exploded in midair. It was possibly hit by lighting, as there was a severe thunderstorm at the time. The report probably won't be released for a year or more, but the pilot radioed the tower and said there was a fire.


Do you have any source for that?
edit on 3-12-2012 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Zcustosmorum
 



The pilot issued a mayday call, saying a fuel tank had caught fire and the plane was out of control. He asked for help to attempt an emergency landing, telling controllers he could see the roofs of homes but not the airport's landing strip.
But the airliner descended 50 feet more before its tanks exploded, said a report by Pakistan's civil aviation authority.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

It may have been exacerbated by wind shear caused by the storm system that was hitting the airport.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Much obliged mate, been waiting on the report for a while, glad to finally get some more info.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Zcustosmorum
 


The official report probably won't be released for at least another year and a half, but the evidence is fire, with an unknown cause starting it, and possibly exacerbated by wind shear (the sudden drop in altitude at the start). It may have been hit by lightning, but the number of aircraft that have been lost, or suffered fire from lightning is insanely low, and this particular aircraft was a 27 year old 737-200. I'm betting a wiring issue in the tank, possibly a fuel probe wire.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 06:19 AM
link   
UAV drones are cheaper to develop than a full size airplane. And every country in this planet can build one if they decide to do so. Sorry but none can control who can have it or not.





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join