USAF Loses UAV Over Populated Area In Training Exercise

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2008 14:18:00 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
Should military hardware be permitted to operate over the heads of
citizens in the CONUS?


Yes. Just as those who fly model airplanes and real airplanes for that
can do so.


Normally model aircraft are operated over unpopulated areas at
designate fields. In fact, the American Modeling Association demands
that and more of model airplane operators:

Normally model aircraft are operated out of empty fields and sometimes
parking lots which may or may not be close to other things.

The American Modeling Association has no authority over anything other
than it's own events and the only thing in your quote about proximety
to others is this one:

snip

7. With the exception of events flown under official AMA
Competition Regulations rules, excluding takeoff and landing, no
powered model may be flown outdoors closer than 25 feet to any
individual, except for the pilot and the pilot?s helper(s) located at
the flightline.

Yeah, 25 feet is lots of separation.

snip

They don't do it with hardware designed for military use, unless it
has proven it is not a hazard. They don't do it without a responsible
PIC at the helm.

What is your fixation with "hardware designed for military use"?

Does something designed for civilian use hurt less if it hits you
than something designed for military use?

Do you believe, that it is appropriate for the military to loose their
uncontrollable unmanned aerial technology among the populous for no
good reason?

snip rest

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:05:02 GMT, wrote in
:


They don't do it with hardware designed for military use, unless it
has proven it is not a hazard. They don't do it without a responsible
PIC at the helm.

What is your fixation with "hardware designed for military use"?

Does something designed for civilian use hurt less if it hits you
than something designed for military use?

I believe, that if the hardware had been designed for civil use,
safeguards would have been designed in. In a war theater there is no
need for those sorts of safeguards, so training operations employing
hardware not designed for civil operation is inappropriate.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2008 17:27:09 -0400, "John T"
wrote in
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


Had you bothered to examine the satellite image of the area in the
link I provided, you'd see that your assumption was erroneous.

It was your post, not my assumption, that listed the Ocala National Forest
as the likely termination point.


The information I cited clearly stated:

the aircraft was launched from an open field
in the 500 block of Southeast 25th Avenue in Ocala.

And I provided a link to the satellite image of the area.

You call that a populous area?

This is a populous area:

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=3...29483&t=h&z=15


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Don't worry, it's just Larry being Chicken Little again, running around
saying the sky is falling.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:05:02 GMT, wrote in
:


They don't do it with hardware designed for military use, unless it
has proven it is not a hazard. They don't do it without a responsible
PIC at the helm.

What is your fixation with "hardware designed for military use"?

Does something designed for civilian use hurt less if it hits you
than something designed for military use?

I believe, that if the hardware had been designed for civil use,
safeguards would have been designed in.

Safeguards such as what?

Don't bother to mention R/C models that stall themselves when control
is lost as that only exists to help recove the thing and not all of them
do that.

In a war theater there is no
need for those sorts of safeguards, so training operations employing
hardware not designed for civil operation is inappropriate.

So there should be training bombers and war bombers, training tanks
and war tanks, training rifles and war rifles, training Humvees and
war Humvees...

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2008 21:05:04 GMT, wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2008 15:18:48 -0400, "John T"
wrote in
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


Is there some specific reason the military MUST operate their UAV over
populated areas?

I believe permitting the military to establish a precedent of training
over populated areas is not in the best interest of our citizens.

You are roughly 80 some years too late to "establish a precedent".


Please provide objective evidence that the military has been operating
UAVs over populated areas for 80 years.

The US military has been training over populated areas since not too
long after the invention of the airplane.


Perhaps, but that doesn't address my opinion about military UAV
operations.

OK, if you want to be explicit and limit the discussion to UAV's,
what is the diffence between a civilian R/C airplane and a military
UAV other than the UAV is built to mil spec, totally tested, built
by people under constant supervision to defined standards, has a
guaranteed interference free operating frequency, usually has GPS
tracking, and is operated by a trained crew while a R/C model is
built by some guy in a basement with electronics from Taiwan,
operated by the same guy who may or may not be sober at the moment,
and is subject to interference from every other Taiwanese R/C
transmitter in the area and may or may not have the money to pay
for any damage he causes?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
news

Facts are facts.

Quite true. It's always the adjectives and surrounding questions that expose
the agenda of the "reporter".

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
news

This UAV is capable of 60 mph flight for 30 minutes
from the information I read.

BTW, how far is 60mph for 30 minutes? 30 miles. That's a lot farther than
the 10km/6.2mi range I've seen listed for the Raven - including the links
you provided. Did you read those?

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:35:05 GMT, wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:05:02 GMT, wrote in
:


In a war theater there is no
need for those sorts of safeguards, so training operations employing
hardware not designed for civil operation is inappropriate.

So there should be training bombers and war bombers, training tanks
and war tanks, training rifles and war rifles, training Humvees and
war Humvees...

No. If at all, there should be UAVs that are designed for domestic
operations during peacetime, instead of hardware designed for use in
war theaters being used domestically.

And unless the military can show good cause to train over cities,
their UAV training should be restricted to unpopulated areas.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

The airlines and GA do not operate hardware DESIGNED FOR MILITARY USE
over the heads of the US populous.


So what? Are you saying hardware DESIGNED FOR MILITARY USE is more likely
to fall out of the sky?



Is there some specific reason the military MUST operate their UAV over
populated areas?


Any thinking human being would assume the mission called for it. Why do you
think the military operates their UAV over populated areas?



I believe permitting the military to establish a precedent of training
over populated areas is not in the best interest of our citizens.


I don't believe many citizens care what you believe.



Why do you find it necessary to defend the military over the best
interests of the citizens of our noble nation?


It isn't necessary. The situation is not as you see it.