Britain - The Official Thread

[arora]

Granted, this 'slow' process has been increasingly rapid since the 19th century. I'm actually not sure what point I'm trying to make; maybe that it seems to me that removal of personal contact or interaction is a natural technological development which either cannot be stopped, or we are not stopping.

We should be able to stop it or at least try imo.

Thinking about the war and worrying yourself sick about the wellbeing of your partner are two different things. I don't think a wife worried about her pilot husband overseas will be having too many level-headed thoughts about the war itself.

I disagree, paying a heavy price, or having the potential to pay that price usually involves a higher reward. Emotion always plays into our thought process, that is why we are humans.

Seeing how ridiculous the R.O.E for British forces in Afghanistan was, I'm fairly confident that civilian casualties from British drones will be very low.

I don't know much about that tbh, I do know that there is always civilian casualties however and it seems to me they are being swept under the rug.

........

I have much more to say and most of it is probably pretty controversial, I'll hold off for now

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

I disagree, paying a heavy price, or having the potential to pay that price usually involves a higher reward.

I don't quite understand what you mean by this, could you elaborate?

 

[arora]

Sure, if you are fighting for something you believe in or believe to be right, you are willing to risk more. If you are just being a dick and it's easy to get away with, well, why not?

(I'm speaking of inequalities to a small degree)

I could go way off topic I suppose, but that should at least clear my position.

 

[Liquid]

Are you insinuating that someone controlling a UAV would be more likely to be reckless, intentionally or not?

Because again, you could argue the same with the other technological advancements we've made to dehumanise war. If you've got a gun or a cannon, fine, go mental; you'll cause much more damage than you ever could with your fists.

 

[arora]

Not regarding the immediate task at hand, no.

 

[Liquid]

Oh, okay, I may have jumped the gun with that one. So to speak.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Point taken.

Let me ask though, if you where married to a fighter pilot and his missions scared or concerned you to a point that you feared for his life, would you think harder about the war or task at hand? Vs. if you knew he was just going to an undisclosed location where the harm factor was greatly diminished to carry out his task.

In the conflicts that drones have been used to date, the risk to pilots has been minimal anyway. Several drones have been lost in Afghanistan but the majority have been due to pilot error and mechanical failure. Any that have been brought down due to small arms fire (because there hasn't been an instance of stinger MANPADS in years) were disadvantaged due to the low speeds UAVs generally operate at. While several manned fast jets have been lost I believe all have been attributed to mechanical failure and pilot error.

It's important to stress that UAVs are not first strike capable, yet. Against a 21st century military their only chance of penetrating defended air space would be through a swarm attack. There are advancements being made in stealth UAVs so we'll see how this goes.

Another key point with UAV control is that they allow better decisions to be made. The line of communication between the pilot and commanding officer can be as little as touching distance. While in conventional strike aircraft it would involve a satellite comms link, a forward air controller and most likely an operations room to get a go/no-go on a target of prime opportunity, or for example a know terrorist driving a car towards a residential area.

The fact is that, apart from the colour of the sky, the pilot of a strike jet has no more information at hand than the pilot of the UAV.

And finally, please don't confuse US UAV operations with British ones. The UK use their assets almost entirely in air support for ground soldiers and by providing situational awareness for rotary assets and artillery.

 

[arora]

In the conflicts that drones have been used to date, the risk to pilots has been minimal anyway. Several drones have been lost in Afghanistan but the majority have been due to pilot error and mechanical failure. Any that have been brought down due to small arms fire (because there hasn't been an instance of stinger MANPADS in years) were disadvantaged due to the low speeds UAVs generally operate at. While several manned fast jets have been lost I believe all have been attributed to mechanical failure and pilot error.

Ok, pilot error would result in what? So the lose is the same except for a life or two.

It's important to stress that UAVs are not first strike capable, yet. Against a 21st century military their only chance of penetrating defended air space would be through a swarm attack. There are advancements being made in stealth UAVs so we'll see how this goes.

We use them as first strike though, that is my point I think, not a war time thing, just a pluck them out thing? I don't think the micro war thing is ok.

Another key point with UAV control is that they allow better decisions to be made. The line of communication between the pilot and commanding officer can be as little as touching distance. While in conventional strike aircraft it would involve a satellite comms link, a forward air controller and most likely an operations room to get a go/no-go on a target of prime opportunity, or for example a know terrorist driving a car towards a residential area.

We don't use them that way though, we take out who we want when we want.

The fact is that, apart from the colour of the sky, the pilot of a strike jet has no more information at hand than the pilot of the UAV.

Agreed, just that he is not there.

And finally, please don't confuse US UAV operations with British ones. The UK use their assets almost entirely in air support for ground soldiers and by providing situational awareness for rotary assets and artillery.

Nope, I will not do that. I was speaking of the machine in general and in my mind where there is potential there is reality.

 

[Famine]

Ed Balls

 

[ExigeEvan]

Ok, pilot error would result in what? So the lose is the same except for a life or two.

Pilot error is usually used to classify things like flying into a mountain or exceeding the performance envelope of the aircraft leading to it crashing.

We use them as first strike though, that is my point I think, not a war time thing, just a pluck them out thing? I don't think the micro war thing is ok.

We, the British, don't use them for first strike. First strike is the operations in the early days of an air conflict, with Libya being the latest example. First Strike capabilities in that case were provided by sea-launched cruise missiles and conventional strike aircraft. AFAIK, only the US used a UAV offensively and that was one month into the conflict.

We don't use them that way though, we take out who we want when we want.

Wrong in this case. I'll remind you this is the British thread. Our rules of engagement are different.

Agreed, just that he is not there.

From my personal knowledge of those that operate these aircraft, they can and on occasion are.

Nope, I will not do that. I was speaking of the machine in general and in my mind where there is potential there is reality.

Then take it elsewhere. This is the British thread. We're discussing British operations. Like it or not, British RoE differ considerably from the US RoE.

My original reply was on the phone, where I was unaware you were from outside of the UK.

 

[Liquid]

Ed Balls

We're talking about drones and Ed Balls crops up.

IRONY!

Ed Balls.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Ed Balls

Suggesting a suitable target for a Hellfire missile Drone strike?

Or is he in the news for something?

 

[Liquid]

Suggesting a suitable target for a Hellfire missile Drone strike?

Or is he in the news for something?

Ed Balls.

Know Your Meme

 

[homeforsummer]

Ed Balls

 

[DK]

Talk about a Balls-up.

 

[arora]

Then take it elsewhere. This is the British thread. We're discussing British operations. Like it or not, British RoE differ considerably from the US RoE.

My original reply was on the phone, where I was unaware you were from outside of the UK.

Pretty sure I'm allowed to post in any thread on here. You may consider your gov more responsible or something but like it or not, I have an opinion about drones that is not limited to any one country.

Yeah I iz murican

 

[Keef]

Pilot error is usually used to classify things like flying into a mountain or exceeding the performance envelope of the aircraft leading to it crashing.

Pilot error is not a term used to classify anything, actually. I get your point but I want to stress the fact that you should avoid using the term "pilot error" because it's not very descriptive and often contributes but one piece of a large puzzle eventually resulting in an accident.

From my personal knowledge of those that operate these aircraft, they can and on occasion are.

The operators are in the same geographical area, yes, but they're not on or inside the UAV. They're not on the front lines of the battlefield and their lives are not in immediate danger which is in stark contrast to myself, flying my little tin can thousands of miles away from any conflict. I'm in it, and if I do something wrong or it fails me then it's my ass on the line, passengers aside, and that gives me every incentive in the world to do everything right the first time. UAV pilots have no such inventive and thus the rate of mishaps is extraordinarily, hilariously high. Entirely unacceptable for our domestic skies, and that's why our FAA has been very hesitant in introducing them to our skies, as has the industry, and have only recently begun working on a set of rules for their testing including methods that fit within existing "restricted area" rules that pilots like myself must be mindful of.

My point is that UAV pilots' lives aren't in immediate danger from and are much less liable for accidents and incidents which gives them much less incentive to perform at a high level, resulting in more accidents and more wasted money.

 

[Roger the Horse]

http://d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net/photos/large/757693129.jpg

And so the waiter said

"Balls Balls Balls Balls Balls Balls Balls?"

 

[sumbrownkid]

Thread about Britain...Sees posts about balls.

I love GTP.

 

[Solo]

Government passes 'Instagram' Act.. So now any images I or fellow photographers in the UK post online it will no longer be our own work but public work for anyone to freely use. I realise there was not much stopping this before but previously at least the photographer had ownership of their photo and if it was used without their permission could do something about it.

 

[Liquid]

Does that also mean the big US firms who lobbied for this' work is also in the public domain and free for us to exploit?

 

[ExigeEvan]

Pilot error is not a term used to classify anything, actually. I get your point but I want to stress the fact that you should avoid using the term "pilot error" because it's not very descriptive and often contributes but one piece of a large puzzle eventually resulting in an accident.

And yet it's widely used by civil aviation authorities around the world. Maybe as a pilot you don't like it being used, but it is most certainly widely used to classify incidents.

The operators are in the same geographical area, yes, but they're not on or inside the UAV. They're not on the front lines of the battlefield and their lives are not in immediate danger which is in stark contrast to myself, flying my little tin can thousands of miles away from any conflict.

Which ignores the fact they provide air support for friendly troops, and more-and-more drones are launched in theatre from man-packs.

I'm in it, and if I do something wrong or it fails me then it's my ass on the line, passengers aside, and that gives me every incentive in the world to do everything right the first time. UAV pilots have no such inventive and thus the rate of mishaps is extraordinarily, hilariously high. Entirely unacceptable for our domestic skies, and that's why our FAA has been very hesitant in introducing them to our skies, as has the industry, and have only recently begun working on a set of rules for their testing including methods that fit within existing "restricted area" rules that pilots like myself must be mindful of.

Flicking through my Airforces monthly it's clear that a lot of UAV failures are due to mechanical faults caused by the far, far lower standards imposed on reliability.

My point is that UAV pilots' lives aren't in immediate danger from and are much less liable for accidents and incidents which gives them much less incentive to perform at a high level, resulting in more accidents and more wasted money.

On the flip side, they're also under less physical stress, less fatigue and can easily be replaced if not performing at optimum level.

 

[Keef]

And yet it's widely used by civil aviation authorities around the world. Maybe as a pilot you don't like it being used, but it is most certainly widely used to classify incidents.

My mistake. Classification, yes, but cause, no. Many people and especially initial news reports often cite pilot error as a "cause" when it's simply a an umbrella term, as you said, for various specific things.

Which ignores the fact they provide air support for friendly troops, and more-and-more drones are launched in theatre from man-packs.

Flicking through my Airforces monthly it's clear that a lot of UAV failures are due to mechanical faults caused by the far, far lower standards imposed on reliability.

The accident reports I looked up cited the big drones like the Pedator and Global Hawk (which costs $250+ million). With regard to these drones, whether piloted to support troops or not, the pilot doesn't have to worry about where he'll land if the engine quits, etc. There aren't any shoulders to park on up there and you don't really realize that until you're knee deep.

On the flip side, they're also under less physical stress, less fatigue and can easily be replaced if not performing at optimum level.

Studies have shown that a lack of stress is just as dangerous for airline pilots as is too much stress. A pilot's level of stress goes up and down radically during different phases of the flight, and thanks to automation the relatively safe cruise portion can still lead to mistakes.

 

[Omnis]

Nah, he's in Florida. You'll be safe.

No one is safe!

 

[sumbrownkid]

No one is safe!

Let's see; bath salts zombie, Kacey Anthony, Bush winning in 2000, George Zimmerman...

 

[Grayfox]

An English cyclist's helmet camera has shown the moment he was knocked to the ground and violently attacked by an angry driver in broad daylight.

The video, which was uploaded to YouTube, shows a van driver overtaking cyclist Stephen Perrin in Birmingham before he stops the vehicle in the middle of the street.

Mr Perrin narrowly manages to avoid the 36-year-old driver the first time and continues on cycling.

But just seconds later the driver is seen running from his vehicle and dragging Mr Perrin off his bike.

The man knocks Mr Perrin to the ground and punches him repeatedly.

The hot-headed driver was recorded saying: "You f----ing pr—k. I'll f---ing knock you out, do you f---ing want to go?"

But police have only issued the driver with a caution despite being given the footage of the vicious attack, the Sun reports.

"Because he had no police record and admitted to the offence, under the ridiculous scoring system imposed on the police he was eligible for a caution," Mr Perrin told the newspaper.

The attack went viral after former Olympic cyclist champion Chris Boardman saw the video and passed the link to his 80,000 Twitter followers.




Assault, public endangerment, wreckless driving, vandalism
A caution, really.


http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2013/04/30/11/12/violent-man-let-off-after-attacking-cyclist

 

[Moglet]

Absolutely ridiculous. The guy clearly can't handle driving in stressful situations and if he reacts like that to a single person beeping at them god knows what he'd do if someone did it in another car. To give him just a caution proves that you can get away with it and could lead to more people 'having a go' because they know they too can get away with a police caution which is, essentially, doing nothing to deter this kind of thing from happening.

It appears that what is happening now is the internet is finding out who he is and posting information online, but this could be anyone's information and could lead to some terrifying situations. However if it's proven that the details are his then their business is likely to suffer and he deserves everything he has coming.


EDIT: That Audi makes a nice noise when it takes off!

EDIT 2: Anyone else think he could have just sucker punched him as he walked off?

 

[Grayfox]

From what the daily fail says it is not his business.

 

[Keef]

Assault, public endangerment, wreckless driving, vandalism
A caution, really.


http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2013/04/30/11/12/violent-man-let-off-after-attacking-cyclist

Here he would have been charged with reckless operation on the traffic side, a misdemeanor, with and probably felony aggravated battery because not only did he attack the cyclist but he broke other laws on his way to do so. This might be reduced to a misdemeanor in our courts. I don't know the right-of-way laws in the UK for cyclists, but here he may have gotten a traffic citation based on the video. I'm not sure, because when I ride I have little regard for traffic laws either way.

 

[Liquid]

Well, after the latest round of Barlow antics...

Stuart Hall admits indecent assault charges

Coincidentally, Bill Roache and Stuart Hall both live in the same village; Wilmslow in lofty Cheshire.