Inside Unmanned Systems

APR-MAY 2018

Inside Unmanned Systems provides actionable business intelligence to decision-makers and influencers operating within the global UAS community. Features include analysis of key technologies, policy/regulatory developments and new product design.

Issue link: https://insideunmanned.epubxp.com/i/969777

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 12 of 67

13 April/May 2018 unmanned systems inside 20Si 200Sr The smallest, lightest Mode S Transponders ALL-IN-ONE DESIGN INTEGRATED SBAS GPS/BARO COMPLETE RADAR AND ADS-B VISIBILITY EASY PLUG & PLAY INSTALL 76 grams 250W Transmit 200+ mile range 25 grams 20W Transmit 40 mile range RADAR CONTACT ESTABLISHED uAvionix.com folks with functional expertise versus avia- tion expertise. Aviators are almost always hesitant to adopt unmanned technology. The reasons the functional and aviation cultures diverge over drones are complex, but the simplest explanation is that func- tional culture just wants to get the job done and aviation culture just wants to do the job safely. True, manned aviators often op- pose drones because they threaten jobs or budgets, but their rational opposition to drones is usually about safety. Convincing manned aviation experts to use their expertise to solve safety problems and normalize drones in your company (or branch of the armed forces) is an absolutely vital step. Air Force intelligence folks are great, but they're always going to worry more about drone sensors than drone safe- ty. Navy surface warfare officers are the salt of the earth (sea?) but unless Navy car- rier aviators adopt drones, our nation will never solve the considerable safety hazards of carrier operations to give America the sea-based drone strike force we need. Drone experts often assume they can solve safety with software, but manned aviation experts should remind them there's no sub- stitute for hundred-year-old aviation safety culture. The Air Force never lost a manned aircraft over Iraq because of maintenance, pilot error or hostile fire during the 11 years of no-f ly zone enforcement—not because they had safety software, but because every maintainer, intelligence operator, arma- ments specialist, weatherman and aircrew supporting operations over Iraq had safety drilled into everything they did. Everyone had checklists, everything was logged and triple checked. We all lived in fear of stan- dards and evaluation personnel suddenly swooping in to find a missed safety step. Even minor accident reports made it up to the wing commander. Major accidents were briefed all the way up to the CSAF. True, drone autonomy software can make unmanned opera- tions much safer than manned aircraft in many cases. However, what good is even the best autonomy software if no one made a safety checklist for the maintenance crews to follow and cracked propellers or worn materi- als were not replaced?

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Inside Unmanned Systems - APR-MAY 2018