Flight International - January 13, 2015

COMMENT

flightglobal.com 13-19 January 2015 | Flight International | 7

See This Week P9, Feature P

T

here is no greater irony to the aircraft tracking

debate than the fact that it has been spurred by an

event against which the technology would probably

have been ineffective.

Ten months after Malaysia Airlines flight MH

vanished, the first proposals for comprehensive track-

ing are being drawn up by ICAO for discussion.

Those trying to find MH370 would trade a dozen

pre-impact tracking points for one reliable post-crash

transmission. Tracking at 15min intervals seems to

have the current popular vote, but that is a long time at

cruise altitude – sufficient for an aircraft to sweep out a

circle of uncertainty half the size of the Java Sea, in the

context of the recent Indonesia AirAsia search.

To suggest tracking will provide instant relief to the

task of reaching and scouring the centre of the Pacific is

beyond delusion, and even if better than nothing, there

is a contradiction between safety and security.

Police officers will tell you to put locks on your door,

but firefighters will tell you to remove them. You can’t

have it both ways, so it is down to probability analysis.

In the tracking debate, the lock is an ‘off’ switch. As

long as crews believe the need for such a switch to neu-

tralise a tracking circuit outweighs the risk of its misuse

then – whatever the potential merits – positing tracking

as a response to deliberate interference, at least, is a

non-starter. ■

On the wrong track?

Bordering on chaos

A scathing report into the use of Predator B aircraft to monitor illegal immigration in the USA

highlights a wider issue: unmanned systems are still way too complicated for many operators

E

ven after a nearly 15-year-old sustained burst of

energy from the unmanned aviation market,

operating an aircraft without a pilot on board is still

considerably harder than it looks.

There is no denying the progress made in the field of

autonomous flight. Kilogramme-for-kilogramme, the

military’s most advanced unmanned air vehicles pack

far more surveillance capability into a single airframe

than their piloted counterparts. After revolutionising

the worlds of tactical aerial surveillance and battlefield

interdiction, the virtues of autonomous flight control

are expanding ever-onward, also encroaching steadily

into strategic reconnaissance and cargo delivery. And if

the rumours are true, there is also a universe of oppor-

tunity awaiting in the commercial market: pending

regulatory approval, of course.

And yet, a close look into so many UAV operations

reveals a shambolic state of affairs.

The latest report along these lines comes from an

audit of a decade-long programme by a US civilian

agency – Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

Since 2004, CBP’s aviation arm has amassed a

10-strong fleet of General Atomics Aeronautical

Systems Predator Bs – the same aircraft designated by

the US Air Force as the MQ-9 Reaper. By contrast to the

USAF Reaper operation, which spans continents, the

CBP’s use is confined to two small stretches of the

southern border of the USA, the Gulf of Mexico and off

the coast of California.

Despite a more hospitable working environment – at

least, compared to the tribal backroads of Pakistan and

Yemen – the audit shows the CBP fleet can barely stay

in the area. The 10 UAVs it owns fly only 22% of the

required flight hours, with the shortfall blamed on

weather, operating restrictions and budget constraints.

The latter appears to be the strongest incentive for

keeping the Predator Bs on the ground. According to

the audit, the CBP’s Predator Bs cost more than $12,

per hour to fly. That means the turboprop-powered air-

craft is nearly as expensive to fly as a twinjet strike

fighter like Fairchild Republic’s A-10.

The CBP’s experience is not unique. As late as 2011,

the USAF recorded a 22% mission capability rate on

its Northrop Grumman RQ-4A Global Hawk fleet, with

an audit of the operational test programme citing simi-

lar challenges as recorded in the CBP audit.

Perhaps the bottom-line driven mentality of the

commercial market is exactly what the unmanned air

system sector needs to thrive. ■

See This Week P

Rex Features

Not as easy as it looks

The bottom-line mentality

of the commercial market is

what the UAS sector needs

David Learmount offers
his succinct views on the
complexities of aviation safety
flightglobal.com/Learmount