Why Drones Crash

Time again to put up another post on an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), or unmanned aircraft system (UAS), or remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) or unmanned aircraft…ok, so let’s just call it a drone for now.

I pointed out a few days ago that the U.S. Gov’t in 2008 was formally warned of the extremely high rate of drone accidents.

…2008 report by the Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan analytical arm of Congress, found UAVs have an accident rate 100 percent higher than manned aircraft.

Things apparently haven’t improved much since, three years later, we are all being subjected to headlines about yet another drone that got away. This should be of little surprise, given the trend.

An analysis of official Air Force data conducted by TomDispatch indicates that its drones crashed in spectacular fashion no less than 13 times in 2011, including that May 5th crash in Kandahar.

About half of those mishaps, all resulting in the loss of an aircraft or property damage of $2 million or more, occurred in Afghanistan or in the tiny African nation of Djibouti, which serves as a base for drones involved in the U.S. secret wars in Somalia and Yemen. All but two of the incidents involved the MQ-1 model, and four of them took place in May.

In 2010, there were seven major drone mishaps, all but one involving Predators; in 2009, there were 11. In other words, there have been 31 drone losses in three years, none apparently shot down, all diving into the planet of their own mechanical accord or thanks to human error.

Maybe the military will always report drone crashes as errors. That’s possible, I guess, especially as they often do clandestine and very remote things. Either way they have a high rate of failure that have been publicly linked to some basic risk factors that do not appear to be getting better.

I pointed out earlier also that the NTSB investigation of a U.S. drone accident had some clear recommendations for how to reduce failures. They said things like follow checklists, require supervision for inexperienced pilots…you know, the kind of stuff that reportedly isn’t being done when these drones have accidents.

The final leg of the doomed mission — in support of elite special operations forces — was being carried out by a pilot who had been operating Predators for about 10 months and had flown drones for approximately 51 hours over the previous 90 days. With less than 400 total hours under his belt, he was considered ‘inexperienced’ by Air Force standards and, during his drone launch and recovery training, had failed two simulator sessions and one flying exercise. He had, however, excelled academically, passed his evaluations, and was considered a qualified MQ-1 pilot, cleared to fly without supervision.

[…]

During the post-crash investigation, it was determined that the ground crew in Afghanistan had been regularly using an unauthorized method of draining engine coolant, though it was unclear whether this contributed to the crash.

[…]

Eventually, the Air Force ruled that a cooling system malfunction had led to engine failure. An accident investigator also concluded that the pilot had not executed proper procedures after the engine failure, causing the craft to crash just short of the runway, slightly damaging the perimeter fence at Kandahar Air Field and destroying the drone.

Some may have good reason to discuss whether all of the best American anti-jamming technology in the world could not prevent a drone from falling into Iranian hands, but that doesn’t do much to address the mounting data on accidents.

U.S. Authorizes Cyberoffense Defense

The FY2012 defense authorization act of December 13 included the following

Congress affirms that the Department of Defense has the
capability, and upon direction by the President may conduct
offensive operations in cyberspace to defend our Nation,
Allies and interests, subject to–
(1) the policy principles and legal regimes that the
Department follows for kinetic capabilities, including the
law of armed conflict; and
(2) the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.).

It goes on to say that spying also is authorized

Military activities in cyberspace (sec. 954)
The House bill contained a provision (sec. 962) that would
clarify that the Secretary of Defense has the authority to
conduct clandestine cyberspace activities in support of
military operations pursuant to the Authorization for the Use
of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; title 50 United States
Code, section 1541 note) outside of the United States or to
defend against a cyber attack on an asset of the Department
of Defense.

And finally the War Powers Act may not be applicable

The conferees stress that, as with any use of force, the War
Powers Resolution may apply.

Oh, whoops, that says it may apply. I take that to mean force is authorized until someone objects or just notices that it should have been regulated under the War Powers Resolution. Obviously I’m not a lawyer, though.

The most interesting aspect of the development is how it could have a ripple effect to the private sector. As I wrote earlier, the Senate is talking about 2012 as the year for the government to retake a leadership role and help drive the security of unclassified, non-military computer systems.

NIST’s involvement after the Computer Security Act of 1987 was for that specific purpose so they technically aren’t forging new ground but rather back on a path started under the Reagan administration.

On the other hand this announcement that the government will invest in “offensive operations in cyberspace to defend” might just be the green light that some companies have been looking for to legitimize and subsidize their own “gray” or even “black” operations.

Is your information security department capable of a non-kinetic defense or gray cyberoffensive defense? Follow the U.S. government’s lead and you may have your team cracking servers, manipulating social networks and stealing credentials from your threats in no time, within the laws and purposes of defensive action of course (e.g. add a good lawyer to the team).

Updated to add the Preemptive Strike iPhone Theme. Don’t push that red button.

iPhone Preemptive Strike

Diving Under Antarctic Ice

I get chills just looking at the series of photos from a National Science Foundation photography mission and thinking about the survival gear necessary for a human.

The National Science Foundation Office of Polar Programs sponsored an underwater photography team to dive out of the US Antarctic Program’s base at McMurdo Station, on Ross Island in Antarctica. For three visits in late austral spring, photos were taken on scuba dives and field excursions at locations around McMurdo Sound: Ross Island and the Antarctic mainland. The team was led by Norbert Wu, a professional underwater photographer/cinematographer.

Here is a very small crop from my favorite photo of the entire series. You can probably guess why.

The Norbert Wu collection says it holds more than 6,000 research images and he has been awarded the “Antarctica Service Medal of the United States of America ‘for his contributions to exploration and science in the U.S. Antarctic Program.'”