Predator runs off Cannon AFB runway

[CommunityEditor]

The Associated Press
Posted : Wednesday Jul 28, 2010 19:16:37 EDT

CANNON AIR FORCE BASE, N.M. — An unmanned aerial drone ran off the runway Wednesday morning at the eastern New Mexico base, officials said.

An MQ-1B Predator assigned to Cannon’s 3rd Special Operations Squadron taxied off the runway through a perimeter fence. It came to rest in an adjacent field, and there were no injuries.

Base officials said the craft carried inert training munitions that pose no hazard.

[JD2780]

HAHHAHAA It not only went off the runway but it went through a fence!!

[Joker76]

As long as the person controlling passed their PT test, all will be fine.

[mel44]

Hee hee y'all are funny! HEY JD

[Skyhawk]

Military Times Editors;

Your link to this discussion from the main article used the term "drone." The MQ-1B is not a drone.

A drone is a unmanned target aircraft.

The MQ-1B is a remotely piloted aircraft (RPA). I think we should hold you to a higher standard of accuracy and require that you use the right terms. You would not call a HUMMV a "car," and you likewise lose your credibility when you call an MQ-1B a "drone." Let's please use the correct terms.

Also, you used the term, "runaway," which implies the aircraft was acting on its own. This is likely not true. During takeoff and landing operations the Predator is manually flown by the pilot-in-command. It is just like any other aircraft. It does not "go off on its own."

The accident investigation process is only just beginning, so no one can assert any reason for the accident. That needs to be determined later.

Your link should have simply read, "Predator crashes through fence," or "RPA crashes."

For comparison purposes, a C-17 crashed at Elmendorf AFB, AK yesterday also. All four crewmembers onboard were kiled. You did not assert that it was flying as a "runwaay," nor did you mislabel the type of aircraft it was.

The people flying the RPA's deserve the same level of respect.

[blacksheep1208]

Military Times Editors;

Your link to this discussion from the main article used the term "drone." The MQ-1B is not a drone.

A drone is a unmanned target aircraft.

The MQ-1B is a remotely piloted aircraft (RPA). I think we should hold you to a higher standard of accuracy and require that you use the right terms. You would not call a HUMMV a "car," and you likewise lose your credibility when you call an MQ-1B a "drone." Let's please use the correct terms.

Also, you used the term, "runaway," which implies the aircraft was acting on its own. This is likely not true. During takeoff and landing operations the Predator is manually flown by the pilot-in-command. It is just like any other aircraft. It does not "go off on its own."

The accident investigation process is only just beginning, so no one can assert any reason for the accident. That needs to be determined later.

Your link should have simply read, "Predator crashes through fence," or "RPA crashes."

For comparison purposes, a C-17 crashed at Elmendorf AFB, AK yesterday also. All four crewmembers onboard were kiled. You did not assert that it was flying as a "runwaay," nor did you mislabel the type of aircraft it was.

The people flying the RPA's deserve the same level of respect.

How many aviators were killed when the Predator made an unexpected visit to the fence? I won't deny that the mission of the Predator is important. However, I'm going to assume that no operators have lost their lives when one has crashed. So to say they deserve the same level of respect as people that are inside of an object that defies gravity is a bit much. Especially the day after 4 of them were killed in a crash.

[Skyhawk]

OK, frankly, you need to work on your reading skills my man!

If you think the point I was making is to compare an accident with no loss of life as being equally serious as one where four people died, then you are either seriously challenged in reading comprehension, or else deliberately trying to provoke an angry response.

Either way, you are way off base.

I suggest you re-read my original comments and see if the second time around you can discern my meaning.

[gundog]

I agree with Skyhawk who was merely pointing out the inaccuracies of the article. Keep in mind that RPAs are piloted and crewed by Airmen, many of which have served on traditional aircraft. Although no one that I know of has been killed by a RPA crash, there are many people who can say that their lives were saved or their FOB had not been attacked by the enemy because of the presence of or information provided by the RPA and their crews. Respect is due. Read the comments by Skyhawk for what it is worth and not by what you infer.

[Salty Old Dog]

Now I can't state as to whether the original post was changed or not, but the copy I'm reading says this:

An MQ-1B Predator assigned to Cannon’s 3rd Special Operations Squadron taxied off the runway through a perimeter fence.

Runway, as in the long strip of concrete that aircraft take off and land from, not RUNAWAY, as in out of control. Which, being a remotely piloted aircraft, could very well have been the case, if the pilot lost communication with the aircraft for some reason.

Also, the OP quotes an Associated Press news story. Being civilian, I wouldn't expect them to get all the facts straight. But again, I don't know if this is the original text in that post.

[airdude]

You know the Air Force Times didn't write that story. It says Associated Press on it.

Also, everyone else in the English-speaking world calls them drones -- except UAV/UAS/RPA/RPS/whatever crews.