Are we as hobbyist UAS users in the clear for now? can we jump for joy? or to soon?
07-23-2016, 06:04 PM
#426
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
One thing that I've learned from full-scale flying is that if I wasn't there, I have no business speculating or commenting on the cause of a crash. Anyone who feels a need to do so, even though they have absolutely no first-hand knowledge of the accident or the events leading up to it, is an idiot!
Are your guesses based on first-hand knowledge?
Harvey
Are your guesses based on first-hand knowledge?
Harvey
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-...l#post12238079
Why the name calling though, what are we back in grade school?
07-23-2016, 07:57 PM
#427
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,088
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As it turns out, I had come back to RCU to edit my post. I wanted to change it since I didn't mean to come down on you like that. I apologize.
One of my pet peeves (about something that full scale pilots are really bad about) is that with minimal or even NO knowledge of what happened, they have all formed an opinion as to what caused an accident before the wreckage has even slid to a stop! Put a pilot's license in a guy's wallet and he instantly turns into an expert on EVERYTHING!
Here's the judgement criteria that's often used...
If the accident plane is a very expensive model that the person judging will never be able to afford (i.e. a King Air or P-51) then the pilot's at fault because he's a dumbass and shouldn't be owning or flying such an exotic plane! Any other plane and it's either air traffic control's fault, a drone strike, or terrorist's fault.
If the pilot was a good-looking female, it's a horrible tragedy. If she wasn't good-looking, she should've been jogging or bicycling instead of participating in a MAN'S sport!
If the pilot was a friend of the person judging, the accident was probably caused by a missile accidentally launched by our own military.
If the person judging was related to the pilot, then it's everybody's fault except his.
Harvey
One of my pet peeves (about something that full scale pilots are really bad about) is that with minimal or even NO knowledge of what happened, they have all formed an opinion as to what caused an accident before the wreckage has even slid to a stop! Put a pilot's license in a guy's wallet and he instantly turns into an expert on EVERYTHING!
Here's the judgement criteria that's often used...
If the accident plane is a very expensive model that the person judging will never be able to afford (i.e. a King Air or P-51) then the pilot's at fault because he's a dumbass and shouldn't be owning or flying such an exotic plane! Any other plane and it's either air traffic control's fault, a drone strike, or terrorist's fault.
If the pilot was a good-looking female, it's a horrible tragedy. If she wasn't good-looking, she should've been jogging or bicycling instead of participating in a MAN'S sport!
If the pilot was a friend of the person judging, the accident was probably caused by a missile accidentally launched by our own military.
If the person judging was related to the pilot, then it's everybody's fault except his.
Harvey
Last edited by H5487; 07-23-2016 at 08:04 PM.
07-24-2016, 02:42 AM
#428
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
As it turns out, I had come back to RCU to edit my post. I wanted to change it since I didn't mean to come down on you like that. I apologize.
One of my pet peeves (about something that full scale pilots are really bad about) is that with minimal or even NO knowledge of what happened, they have all formed an opinion as to what caused an accident before the wreckage has even slid to a stop! Put a pilot's license in a guy's wallet and he instantly turns into an expert on EVERYTHING!
Here's the judgement criteria that's often used...
If the accident plane is a very expensive model that the person judging will never be able to afford (i.e. a King Air or P-51) then the pilot's at fault because he's a dumbass and shouldn't be owning or flying such an exotic plane! Any other plane and it's either air traffic control's fault, a drone strike, or terrorist's fault.
If the pilot was a good-looking female, it's a horrible tragedy. If she wasn't good-looking, she should've been jogging or bicycling instead of participating in a MAN'S sport!
If the pilot was a friend of the person judging, the accident was probably caused by a missile accidentally launched by our own military.
If the person judging was related to the pilot, then it's everybody's fault except his.
Harvey
One of my pet peeves (about something that full scale pilots are really bad about) is that with minimal or even NO knowledge of what happened, they have all formed an opinion as to what caused an accident before the wreckage has even slid to a stop! Put a pilot's license in a guy's wallet and he instantly turns into an expert on EVERYTHING!
Here's the judgement criteria that's often used...
If the accident plane is a very expensive model that the person judging will never be able to afford (i.e. a King Air or P-51) then the pilot's at fault because he's a dumbass and shouldn't be owning or flying such an exotic plane! Any other plane and it's either air traffic control's fault, a drone strike, or terrorist's fault.
If the pilot was a good-looking female, it's a horrible tragedy. If she wasn't good-looking, she should've been jogging or bicycling instead of participating in a MAN'S sport!
If the pilot was a friend of the person judging, the accident was probably caused by a missile accidentally launched by our own military.
If the person judging was related to the pilot, then it's everybody's fault except his.
Harvey
One doesn't need to fly fighter jets or know the ins and outs of radar to give an opinion on something. Folks can still offer up an opinion on something. Nothing wrong with debating the merits of the statements.
07-26-2016, 08:38 AM
#429
hmm......multiple crashes of the same or similar types or aircraft, all flown by the military pilots, all specially certified by the same type of organizations. It's a design failure, a manufacturing failure, a pilot failure, or an training/inspection failure. What it's not is a coincidence.
They dig very deep to find each and every causal and contributing factor in each mishap. I've done three, and we look at every maintenance record, inspection record, every aircrew record, 72 hour human factors history of the aircrew (and maintenance crews if determined appropriate), training records, mission planning documents, signoffs, maintenance signoffs, maintenance training, account for all tools used in the squadron, etc. etc.
Last edited by franklin_m; 07-26-2016 at 08:43 AM.
07-26-2016, 08:47 AM
#430
And the difference is those organizations do not say "There is however only so much that can be done" and brush it off (Post #297 - http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-...t-nope-12.html)
They dig very deep to find each and every causal and contributing factor in each mishap. I've done three, and we look at every maintenance record, inspection record, every aircrew record, 72 hour human factors history of the aircrew (and maintenance crews if determined appropriate), training records, mission planning documents, signoffs, maintenance signoffs, maintenance training, account for all tools used in the squadron, etc. etc.
They dig very deep to find each and every causal and contributing factor in each mishap. I've done three, and we look at every maintenance record, inspection record, every aircrew record, 72 hour human factors history of the aircrew (and maintenance crews if determined appropriate), training records, mission planning documents, signoffs, maintenance signoffs, maintenance training, account for all tools used in the squadron, etc. etc.
07-26-2016, 09:04 AM
#431
There is no additional compensation for being part of an accident investigation team. It's IN ADDITION to all of your other regular flying and non-flying military duties. You do it because you're dedicated to enhancing aviation safety - and because you do not support the mindset that "There is however only so much that can be done."
07-26-2016, 09:45 AM
#432
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,088
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even in peacetime, military duty can be dangerous work; from cutting oneself on a sharp tool to the possibility of a nuclear accident. All mishaps are investigated in order to try to prevent their reoccurrence. And when it comes to an aircraft accident, an in-depth investigation is dictated by strict military regulations.
We also do it on behalf of the families who have lost loved ones and to prevent it from happening again to more families.
And we do it on behalf of the taxpayers who own the aircraft and don't want to see more government assets (i.e. your tax dollars) destroyed needlessly.
Harvey
Last edited by H5487; 07-26-2016 at 10:06 AM.
07-26-2016, 09:54 AM
#433
There is no additional compensation for being part of an accident investigation team. It's IN ADDITION to all of your other regular flying and non-flying military duties.
I see, so it's part of the job for which you're already received full-time compensation.
You do it because you're dedicated to enhancing aviation safety - and because you do not support the mindset that "There is however only so much that can be done."
Agreed. Safety is of the utmost importance. And since safety is of the utmost importance, it only makes sense to focus on where you can have the biggest impact, right?
I see, so it's part of the job for which you're already received full-time compensation.
You do it because you're dedicated to enhancing aviation safety - and because you do not support the mindset that "There is however only so much that can be done."
Agreed. Safety is of the utmost importance. And since safety is of the utmost importance, it only makes sense to focus on where you can have the biggest impact, right?
07-26-2016, 10:02 AM
#434
Chris,
Military duty is very dangerous work; from working with sharp tools to the possibility of a nuclear accident. Therefore, NO mishap is considered trivial. All mishaps are investigated in order to try to prevent their reoccurrence. In-depth accident investigations are dictated by military regulations anytime lives or assets are lost.
We also do it on behalf of the families who have lost loved ones and to prevent it from happening again to more families.
And we do it on behalf of the taxpayers who own the aircraft and don't want to see more government assets (i.e. your tax dollars) destroyed needlessly.
Harvey
Military duty is very dangerous work; from working with sharp tools to the possibility of a nuclear accident. Therefore, NO mishap is considered trivial. All mishaps are investigated in order to try to prevent their reoccurrence. In-depth accident investigations are dictated by military regulations anytime lives or assets are lost.
We also do it on behalf of the families who have lost loved ones and to prevent it from happening again to more families.
And we do it on behalf of the taxpayers who own the aircraft and don't want to see more government assets (i.e. your tax dollars) destroyed needlessly.
Harvey
Really proud to be part of an organization that doesn't tolerate any mishap, whether injury or just property damage. Proud to have been part of an organization that would never say nor tolerate anyone that would ever say "There is however only so much that can be done."
07-26-2016, 10:59 AM
#435
Amen.
Really proud to be part of an organization that doesn't tolerate any mishap, whether injury or just property damage.
If that were true, why are there still so many?
Proud to have been part of an organization that would never say nor tolerate anyone that would ever say "There is however only so much that can be done."
Really proud to be part of an organization that doesn't tolerate any mishap, whether injury or just property damage.
If that were true, why are there still so many?
Proud to have been part of an organization that would never say nor tolerate anyone that would ever say "There is however only so much that can be done."
07-26-2016, 11:01 AM
#436
Amen.
Really proud to be part of an organization that doesn't tolerate any mishap, whether injury or just property damage. Proud to have been part of an organization that would never say nor tolerate anyone that would ever say "There is however only so much that can be done."
Really proud to be part of an organization that doesn't tolerate any mishap, whether injury or just property damage. Proud to have been part of an organization that would never say nor tolerate anyone that would ever say "There is however only so much that can be done."
Wildlife strikes with U.S. military rotary- wing aircraft deployed in foreign countries:
http://www.berrymaninstitute.org/fil...AlFall2014.pdf
07-26-2016, 11:03 AM
#437
07-26-2016, 11:08 AM
#438
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[attach=config]2174472[/attach]
07-26-2016, 11:22 AM
#439
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
And the difference is those organizations do not say "There is however only so much that can be done" and brush it off (Post #297 - http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-...t-nope-12.html)
They dig very deep to find each and every causal and contributing factor in each mishap. I've done three, and we look at every maintenance record, inspection record, every aircrew record, 72 hour human factors history of the aircrew (and maintenance crews if determined appropriate), training records, mission planning documents, signoffs, maintenance signoffs, maintenance training, account for all tools used in the squadron, etc. etc.
They dig very deep to find each and every causal and contributing factor in each mishap. I've done three, and we look at every maintenance record, inspection record, every aircrew record, 72 hour human factors history of the aircrew (and maintenance crews if determined appropriate), training records, mission planning documents, signoffs, maintenance signoffs, maintenance training, account for all tools used in the squadron, etc. etc.
There is no additional compensation for being part of an accident investigation team. It's IN ADDITION to all of your other regular flying and non-flying military duties. You do it because you're dedicated to enhancing aviation safety - and because you do not support the mindset that "There is however only so much that can be done."
Amen.
Really proud to be part of an organization that doesn't tolerate any mishap, whether injury or just property damage. Proud to have been part of an organization that would never say nor tolerate anyone that would ever say "There is however only so much that can be done."
Really proud to be part of an organization that doesn't tolerate any mishap, whether injury or just property damage. Proud to have been part of an organization that would never say nor tolerate anyone that would ever say "There is however only so much that can be done."
It was probably the crash at Warbirds over Delaware with the Mac Hodges B-29 crash. No injuries, just property damage.
I don't think anyone is against safety measures or anything reasonable that would help to stop injury or damage. There is however only so much that can be done. An FAA inspection doesn't guarantee that a scale plane won't crash, for a number of reasons. The degree that we should go, or the AMA, or the FAA perhaps is this issue (and the costs associated with that).
Incidentally, WOD just wrapped up last week, saw some great videos from it, no crashes that I'm aware of.
So i see the new drumbeat is showing how I said "there is however only so much that can be done". Have at it I guess, it will go over about as well as the other one frothing at the mouth about Chris allegedly calling AMA members thieves and being dishonest etc blah etc. Weak, transparent, empty diversionary tactics.
"there is however only so much that can be done" is a statement of obvious fact, unable really to be disproved. Nothing you or any other safety minded person, or service member former or current, or accident reconstruction expert can every say something to prove that wrong. Actually, nothing any of you have said, or even suggested yet show otherwise. Accepting that is nothing short of accepting reality. Living in a fantasy world, a world where there are a billion rules and regs are in place won't change that.
Short of not flying, there is really nothing you are anyone else can do to stop accidents and possible damage to person or property. If you or anyone else here had the solution, you sure wouldn't be here talking about it.
There is no perfect system or process in this world, other than death I suppose.
You can puff your chest out and proclaim how proud you are to be part of an organization that doesn't tolerate any mishap, but the reality is they have to accept the fact that it does happen. Nothing you or they can do to totally rule that out.
So ya, there is however only so much that can be done.
07-26-2016, 11:23 AM
#440
And if they took the attitude that "There is however only so much that can be done," then that memorandum wouldn't exist.
07-26-2016, 11:28 AM
#441
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Chris,
Even in peacetime, military duty can be dangerous work; from cutting oneself on a sharp tool to the possibility of a nuclear accident. All mishaps are investigated in order to try to prevent their reoccurrence. And when it comes to an aircraft accident, an in-depth investigation is dictated by strict military regulations.
We also do it on behalf of the families who have lost loved ones and to prevent it from happening again to more families.
And we do it on behalf of the taxpayers who own the aircraft and don't want to see more government assets (i.e. your tax dollars) destroyed needlessly.
Harvey
Even in peacetime, military duty can be dangerous work; from cutting oneself on a sharp tool to the possibility of a nuclear accident. All mishaps are investigated in order to try to prevent their reoccurrence. And when it comes to an aircraft accident, an in-depth investigation is dictated by strict military regulations.
We also do it on behalf of the families who have lost loved ones and to prevent it from happening again to more families.
And we do it on behalf of the taxpayers who own the aircraft and don't want to see more government assets (i.e. your tax dollars) destroyed needlessly.
Harvey
What you and others do is the work of angels, even more so if it's not a job that is compensated. There are folks that will do it for nothing less than personal satisfaction and a desire to help others. It would be hard to argue otherwise.
That being said, neither you nor any organization out there can totally ensure that no future mishaps will occur. It just can't be done. That's not to say that constant improvements to machines and processes aren't sought out, but short of NOT engaging in a specific action, there will always be some type of risk associated with it.
07-26-2016, 11:29 AM
#442
As the only one of the two of us to actually attended a military aviation safety school, and the only one of the two of us to have actually managed a military aviation safety program, I can say you are wrong. Military aviation operates under the premise that every accident is preventable.
07-26-2016, 11:30 AM
#443
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Sure looks like a lot of tolerance to me.
Wildlife strikes with U.S. military rotary- wing aircraft deployed in foreign countries:
http://www.berrymaninstitute.org/fil...AlFall2014.pdf
Wildlife strikes with U.S. military rotary- wing aircraft deployed in foreign countries:
http://www.berrymaninstitute.org/fil...AlFall2014.pdf
07-26-2016, 11:36 AM
#444
Harvey,
What you and others do is the work of angels, even more so if it's not a job that is compensated. There are folks that will do it for nothing less than personal satisfaction and a desire to help others. It would be hard to argue otherwise.
That being said, neither you nor any organization out there can totally ensure that no future mishaps will occur. It just can't be done. That's not to say that constant improvements to machines and processes aren't sought out, but short of NOT engaging in a specific action, there will always be some type of risk associated with it.
What you and others do is the work of angels, even more so if it's not a job that is compensated. There are folks that will do it for nothing less than personal satisfaction and a desire to help others. It would be hard to argue otherwise.
That being said, neither you nor any organization out there can totally ensure that no future mishaps will occur. It just can't be done. That's not to say that constant improvements to machines and processes aren't sought out, but short of NOT engaging in a specific action, there will always be some type of risk associated with it.
Would that mean a drop of 0.25v? 0.5? 1.5?
Or is it a percentage of the pack voltage?
Is it under load or static?
How is it measured?
My point is that if the methodology and pass/fail standards are not standardized, then it's really just arbitrary. In the world of safety policy, it's "elastic language' that can be whatever you want it to be.
07-26-2016, 11:39 AM
#445
There is no additional compensation for being part of an accident investigation team. It's IN ADDITION to all of your other regular flying and non-flying military duties. You do it because you're dedicated to enhancing aviation safety - and because you do not support the mindset that "There is however only so much that can be done."
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IYFVw4DFqXo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
07-26-2016, 11:40 AM
#446
Contrast that with any number of sUAS near misses that never get reported, let alone recorded, tracked, and analyzed for mishap prevention purposes.
07-26-2016, 11:44 AM
#447
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Not millions, but BILLIONS. Only so much the miltary can do.....
As the only one of the two of us to actually attended a military aviation safety school, and the only one of the two of us to have actually managed a military aviation safety program, I can say you are wrong. Military aviation operates under the premise that every accident is preventable.
Your attendance in a class or program or even your previous active duty is impressive, no argument from me...but it's completely irrelevant to the premise and discussion.
But meanwhile, how is that premise working out for the military this year? Any issues with the Thunderbirds, or say, Blue Angels? I'd say there's a wee bit of a problem that you or others haven't been able to solve. Oh sure, you can put into place lot's of great ideas and suggestions after the fact (that seems to be a common theme), but what is it again that you are doing to absolutely prevent any further incidents? Please, do tell. Because whatever it is, it's failing miserably, and it looks like there is only so much you can do.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/20/politi...viation-crash/
Oh hey, not to be nitpicky and all, but that's just with military aviation. Not any other means of transportation.
07-26-2016, 11:44 AM
#448
You can attempt to mock this all you want, but the reality is that we know about those risks because they're recorded, tracked, and analyzed for mishap prevention programs.
Contrast that with any number of sUAS near misses that never get reported, let alone recorded, tracked, and analyzed for mishap prevention purposes.
Contrast that with any number of sUAS near misses that never get reported, let alone recorded, tracked, and analyzed for mishap prevention purposes.
http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_...-1990-2013.pdf
07-26-2016, 11:48 AM
#449
You can attempt to mock this all you want, but the reality is that we know about those risks because they're recorded, tracked, and analyzed for mishap prevention programs.
Now you're being mocked because you refuse to accept the FAA's own numbers?
Contrast that with any number of sUAS near misses that never get reported, let alone recorded, tracked, and analyzed for mishap prevention purposes.
Now you're being mocked because you refuse to accept the FAA's own numbers?
Contrast that with any number of sUAS near misses that never get reported, let alone recorded, tracked, and analyzed for mishap prevention purposes.
07-26-2016, 11:48 AM
#450
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Here's a question that points to a specific area where I think inspections can be improved. The LMA inspection program says the inspector is to ensure wiring harnesses "have minimal voltage drop."
Would that mean a drop of 0.25v? 0.5? 1.5?
Or is it a percentage of the pack voltage?
Is it under load or static?
How is it measured?
My point is that if the methodology and pass/fail standards are not standardized, then it's really just arbitrary. In the world of safety policy, it's "elastic language' that can be whatever you want it to be.
Would that mean a drop of 0.25v? 0.5? 1.5?
Or is it a percentage of the pack voltage?
Is it under load or static?
How is it measured?
My point is that if the methodology and pass/fail standards are not standardized, then it's really just arbitrary. In the world of safety policy, it's "elastic language' that can be whatever you want it to be.
If the answer is no, well then....would it be safe to say there is only so much that can be done?