Hit the Wrong Button, Drone Goes Boom 129
ios and web coder writes "An article at Ars notes, 'Unmanned aircraft crash. In fact, they crash a lot—though there's no recent specific data, the Congressional Research Service reported last year that despite improvements, "the accident rate for unmanned aircraft is still far above that of manned aircraft.' And while many of those accidents can be attributed to being exposed to hostile fire or operating in conditions when aircraft normally wouldn't, a significant percentage of drone crashes is caused by human error. A December 2004 FAA study of Defense Department drone crashes found human factors to be a causal factor in about a third of the cases they examined (PDF).' Drones are un-cheap. As yesterday's Super Hornet story noted, they are cheaper than manned planes... but not that much cheaper. Expect them to get more expensive. Also, as they get armed, the price paid for a bad UX decision could become quite tragic."
I know why. (Score:2)
It's who they have flying these things [mtv.com]. You would think they could do better.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's the best reason yet to leave the US.
Re:I know why. (Score:5, Funny)
MTV.com is designed for use within the USA so a lot of the site, including most of the videos, won't work for visitors from outside the country.
That sounds like bitching... why would you bitch about that?
It could be worse, you know - you could be able to access MTV.com.
Re: (Score:2)
There are various methods to view restricted media. I've found Hola media unblocker to be fairly effective. Or, channel through some other proxy that you prefer. It's hard to believe that slashdot readers are restricted by regional nonsense - that's for the unwashed ignorant masses! I routinely watch media on the BBC that isn't "authorized" for viewing in the US.
I'm authorized, because I'm smarter than the dumb bastards who think they have some god-given right to restrict me!
Re: (Score:3)
"It's who they have flying these things. You would think they could do better."
Maybe. But I think it's more just WHAT it is. Despite the fact that these things cost millions of dollars, flying them is still just a glorified videogame. It's no substitute for actually sitting in the cockpit of a plane, going "Ohhhh shit!"
Re: (Score:1)
Re:I know why. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't doubt that pilots experience a connection and feeling of "I', there" with the drones. But I'm not convinced that it's really the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
A pilot I know said the lacking information is why he's crashed flight sims a lot more often than he's crashed real planes :)
Re: (Score:3)
Marketdroid fix.... (Score:2)
Have you tried our new force-feedback controller? ;-)
It VIBRATES!!!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
"We learned on MS Flight Simulator. I thought it was standard practice to reboot every half hour, Boss."
Incentive (Score:2, Interesting)
"the accident rate for unmanned aircraft is still far above that of manned aircraft.'
In addition to being cheaper, unmanned aircraft have no people on them. So much less of an incentive to worry about safety.
Until the fall on someone's head, that is.
Re: (Score:2)
it's a matter of falling on the the right persons head.
Re: (Score:2)
it's a matter of falling on the the right persons head.
That's an easy one - whoever it falls on will, by default, be the "right person."
Re: (Score:3)
Not really. If you're someone "who doesn't matter" it will just be ignored and kicked under the rug. If it falls on the head of someone with some influence or close to someone who has it all of the sudden it will matter.
Re: (Score:2)
So it's not just "Death from Above" (Score:2)
Re:So it's not just "Death from Above" (Score:5, Interesting)
It's "Death from Above due to incompetence" too? That makes me feel so much better.
The study was done in 2004, nearly a decade ago, and most of the flights during that time were with much earlier
models than available today.
Still you have to worry about what happens when every Barney Fife from your local sheriff department can run one of these
with 10 hours training.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how police work. When they run out of money they just raise fines and start going after non-crimes like parking offenses and jaywalking and fill up their coffers again.
Re: (Score:1)
Wrong button? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The left button?
Remember: Left is right and right is wrong. Hey, it works for earrings.
Why worry? (Score:2)
We'll only use those drones abroad where nobody cares whether we drop them on some brown skinned folks. The world already doesn't give half a shit about it when we blow up a few houses 'cause someone heard someone consider pondering that there might be a terrorist somewhere in the general area. And if those things fall out of the sky, it will make our friends happy who sell them. Think of the jobs we create that way!
Also, think how we protect our valuable fighters. You know how long it takes to train a figh
Un-word (Score:4, Insightful)
"Un-cheap" is not a word. TFS should say "not cheap". Can we please have some minimal editing for language in future?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why that's un possible!
Re:Un-word (Score:4, Funny)
Me fail english? That's unpossible!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Un-word (Score:5, Interesting)
"Un-cheap" is not a word. TFS should say "not cheap".
Sigh...
if only you were right... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The truth, it hurts..... (Score:2)
I think I feel sick now... :-(
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately that doesn't make the usage of something from that language correct in this language.
Otherwise you might as well pepper your comments with Klingon and call it English as well.
Re: (Score:3)
you're missing the implication of using newspeak in an article about surveillance and remote executions across borders.
Re: (Score:2)
... whoosh.
No, that wasn't a drone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Un-cheap" is not a word. TFS should say "not cheap". Can we please have some minimal editing for language in future?
Double plus ungood?
Re: (Score:1)
Correct.... (Score:2)
Yes, the manes proved to induce extreme aeronautical drag while attempting flight.
So they had to remove the manes from the drones.
Thus, the mystery of why there are no known cases of flying lions, is now solved.
Re: (Score:2)
Sheesh, I only claim English as a second language, and that I haven't found first, but even I won't say something as mangled as 'un-cheap' unless I'm making a joke.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Un-cheap" is not a word. TFS should say "not cheap". Can we please have some minimal editing for language in future?
Apparently whoever currently controls the present has un-realitized 1984 from the timestream.
Re: (Score:2)
"Un-cheap" might not be word, but "litotes" is. The poster chose to use the neologism "un-cheap" rather than "not cheap" to highlight the fact he was using irony.
I don't quite get why people get so hot-and-bothered by this kind of garden variety use of language. Does the government take a nickel out of your bank account every time somebody uses a neologism or something? That'd un-copacetic.
Re: (Score:2)
no big deal (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you kill enough bad guys you get an extra life anyway.
2004? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Data is always valid.
What you meant to ask is, "does that [2004] data apply to the current situation?"
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps to incentivise the drone pilots to not crash, they should sit them in ejector seats? You know, inside their office!
Re: (Score:2)
No matter what they do, it will always be a kind of video game.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, since it's remote, and not where the 'pilot' is, they have a level of psychological disconnection much greater than that of the pilot of a manned vehicle.
No matter what they do, it will always be a kind of video game.
This also makes it easier to kill people.
The militaries (especially in Western nations) are always looking for ways to make it easier for people to 'override' their instinct to not take lives. A lot of military training goes into removing the delay between seeing an enemy human being and pulling the trigger; for infantry its a matter of sheer psychological conditioning and drilling. For drone jockeys, maybe too easy...
duh (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine that training with an UAV simulator is much closer to reality than training with the simulator of a manned aircraft.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, drone pilots do a basic flying course all the way up through solo flights and cross-country flights. They are just as real pilots as anybody that just got their private pilot's license. They don't have the extensive flight training of their fighter/bomber/transport brothers but they do have extensive training flying their drones.
Re: (Score:2)
You think some armchair-pilot cares, that's cute. It's not like he/she is sitting in the cockpit. The reason why these are cheap is beacause the human element has been taken out (to train a pilot is around $2M last time I checked, and it's been a decade.) So yeah, they're gonna crash more than manned flights. Who cares? You want the pilot to care? Sitting his/her ass in a manned jet is the only sure way to make that happen, and yes, that's expensive.
It's easier/cheaper to train a mechanic to unbox another drone and screw the wings on...
I can think of two solutions;
Electric shock feedback for the drone jockies, maybe some heating elements wired to the soles of their feet stuff like that. So they feel pain when the drone 'feels pain'.
Alternatively program the drones so that they fear death and don't want to crash.
The first will probably end better than the second...
Re: (Score:2)
Only "a third" caused by human error? (Score:4, Interesting)
One third is a surprisingly low percentage. The number of manned small plane crashes caused by human error is probably close to two thirds.
So while I'm sure lot could be done to improve the ergonomics of the pilot, it sounds like the drones' mechanical failure rate is a more worrying problem.
Re: (Score:1)
You need a disclaimer.
Yes, the rate is at 54%, but what they classify as pilot error you may or may not. I'm pretty sure a local crash got put down as pilot error because the engine blew shortly after takeoff and oil covered the windshield and the two guys went down in the water, mostly unharmed. They had slight engine weirdness on run up that they chose to ignore so it was pilot error. I would have gone back, not much flight experience for me, because I don't feel comfortable if anything is slightly off
All the more reason to remove the human element (Score:1)
Make the drones totally autonomous.
Now, excuse me while I go hide under a tree.
Re: (Score:1)
Who do you think programs the automation?
Expensive? WTF? (Score:1)
While I recognize this is not military quality, but for under a grand I can easily build a self navigating aircraft capable of carrying all sorts of surveillance and bombs such as Molotov cocktails. I may not get days of flight time, but I bet I can come pretty close on my first try. I don't even have to do any real work, just combine my existing R/C modeling skills with some parts from diydrones.com. The hardware is cheap, comes with software thats pretty solid from the start and easy as hell to extend.
That's the low hanging fruit (Score:2)
Hit the wrong button you say?... (Score:2)
Danger... (Score:2)
The risk of crashing a manned plane is your death...
Flying a drone is more like a video game, you don't have any fear of personal injury so you expend less effort to avoid crashing.
Cockstations or Workpits? (Score:1)
from TFA: "Analysis shows that general-purpose computer workstations and UAS GCSes are up to 98% similar. "
There's your problem, right there. Flying a desk is not the same thing as flying a computer.
There's a reason that certain cockpit controls have different shapes. For example, tactile feedback, as long as you're trained to pay attention to it, can spare you the embarrassment of mistaking your flaps from your landing gear. Just in case you've never flown, retracting the gear when you're "going around
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There's your problem, right there. Flying a desk is not the same thing as flying a computer.
I remember in a game, 'Civilisation: Call to Power' there was a corporation unit the animation of which was basically a guy in a suit sitting at a desk. When it move yes it was very much like a flying desk. I always found that quite hilarious.
So, no change...disappointing (Score:3)
CFIT was identified as a cause of 25% of USAF Class A Mishaps between 1993 and 2002.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFIT [wikipedia.org]
Controlled (should be "uncontrolled?") Flight Into Terrain. Simply put, "the aircraft was working fine until someone drove it into the ground".
It's easy to do, especially with high workload in a fast jet, in a combat situation.
I guess that the UAV technology is still immature.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess that the UAV technology is still immature.
Yes, this. We are nowhere near replacing most manned military aircraft, especially fighters, with drones for at least a decade, probably more. Despite the vehement protestations of many of slashdot's armchair generals.
"Not that much cheaper"?? Whatever! (Score:1)
The study was done WHEN? (Score:4, Insightful)
You've got to be shitting me.
A news story based on a decade-old study?
In other news, a 2004 study shows that your iPad does not exist!
Re: (Score:2)
Also, a 2004 study shows that computers won't run Crysis 3.
Oh my god!
AF recalcitrance responsible for accidents (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That kind of makes sense. If somebody pulled me out of what I do now and put a point-and-click interface between me and my work, I'd get upset too. They should hire people from the gaming community.
Apologies to Louis Prima (Score:2)
You push the wrong button down
The drone careens round and round
And slashmissions come out
Simple solution (Score:2)
Get humans out of the loop.
-- SkyNet
awareness (Score:1)
An artist at my University has worked towards trying to raise awareness of these sorts of risks - particularly topical for the San Diego region where we have a confluence of lots of defense companies and high-tech university research. His art piece generated a lot of attention for wanting to stimulate the conversations we'd have when a crash occurs in a residential or otherwise inopportune area, before the event actually happens. http://uccenterfordrones.wordpress.com/regarding-recent-drone-malfunction/ [wordpress.com] was
experience vs theory vs practice (Score:2)
The theory is that drones should fly better than manned aircraft--makes logical sense since drones are essentially robots/computers.
The experience is that drone crash more often and mainly caused by human error. Since drones are remotely controlled exclusively, not in a supervisory manner.
The practice is that drone control, equipment, telemetry and pilot training, though not classified as manned operation, were based on manned operation principles (e.g. rules of engagement for instance).
Basically the Human
The obvious solution (Score:2)
...is remove any potential human error by developing an artificial intelligence to completely computerize operations. We could call it Skynet.
Offtopic: There's a UX for that? (Score:1)
Are we at the point now that every 'ios and web' coder must consider a default 'UX' for every touchable object on the planet? Or do they really think the 'UX' of killing is to be regarded a major sales point for modern military budgets.
Is it too hard to accept that users still create a large part of their own experience learning any device and is not something which needs to be self-built in, unlike a UI? Where exactly are we aiming to hurl our technological consciousness back towards?
Just wait, they'll soon get small enough .... (Score:2)
Soon they'll be autonomous, solar powered, and small and smart enough
to track you down and crawl into your ear before they blow your mind out your nostrils.
Ban the earworm now, before it's too late!
We don't want them as safe as manned aircrafts (Score:2)
We build and operate manned aircrafts to a very very high safety standard.
A simple software upgrade for a manned aircraft takes years to complete, because of the standards employed.
When operating manned aircrafts we have strict standards as well on how to do everything and many many small and large things we don't do.
These are all very limiting both in the cost they impose and in the ability to get the job done.
We use unmanned aircrafts so we operate more freely both when building and when flying them, this
"could become?" (Score:2)
Drones Go Back A Long Way (Score:1)
Obvious answer? (Score:1)