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:

http://www.modelaircraft.org/PDF-files/Memanual.PDF
RADIO CONTROL
1. All model flying shall be conducted in a manner to avoid over
flight of unprotected people.
2. I will have completed a successful radio equipment ground-range
check before the first flight of a new or repaired model aircraft.
3. I will not fly my model aircraft in the presence of spectators
until I become a proficient flier, unless I am assisted by an
experienced pilot.
4. At all flying sites a safety line or lines must be established,
in front of which all flying takes place. Only personnel associated
with flying the model aircraft are allowed at or in front of the
safety line. In the case of airshows or demonstrations a straight
safety line must be established. An area away from the safety line
must be maintained for spectators. Intentional flying behind the
safety line is prohibited.
5. I will operate my model aircraft using only radio-control
frequencies currently allowed by the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC). Only individuals properly licensed by the FCC are authorized to
operate equipment on Amateur Band frequencies.
6. I will not knowingly operate my model aircraft within three (3)
miles of any preexisting flying site without a frequency-management
agreement. A frequency management agreement may be an allocation of
frequencies for each site, a day-use agreement between sites, or
testing which determines that no interference exists. A
frequency-management agreement may exist between two or more AMA
chartered clubs, AMA clubs and individual AMA members, or individual
AMA members. Frequency-management agreements, including an
interference test report if the agreement indicates no interference
exists, will be signed by all parties and copies provided to AMA
Headquarters.
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.
8. Under no circumstances may a pilot or other person touch a
model aircraft in flight while it is still under power, except to
divert it from striking an individual.
9. Radio-controlled night flying is limited to low-performance
model aircraft (less than 100 mph). The model aircraft must be
equipped with a lighting system which clearly defines the aircraft’s
attitude and direction at all times.
10. The operator of a radio-controlled model aircraft shall
control it during the entire flight, maintaining visual contact
without enhancement other than by corrective lenses that are
prescribed for the pilot. No model aircraft shall be equipped with
devices which allow it to be flown to a selected location which is
beyond the visual range of the pilot.


So, the USAF is permitted to fly UAVs in training missions over
populated areas?

Yes


I can see where military UAV operation may be appropriate in times of
emergency, but they were training, and completely lost control of the
aircraft, and had no way to protect innocent citizens from the hazard
it caused. Wouldn't it be more prudent to conduct military TRAINING
over unpopulated areas? Was there some specific need to train over a
populated area?



http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...28496&t=h&z=15
Who approved this? Why can't the military conduct training missions
where there is less danger of consequences to private citizens?


Civilians conduct training missions over private citizens all the time
in aircraft that way [sic] a lot more than 4 pounds.


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.

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


Doesn't the USAF UAV have a means of destructing the UAV in the event
it becomes uncontrollable? What would be the likely result if one of
these boy-toys hit the windshield of a car at freeway speeds?


So some how in your mind a 4 pound model airplane is worse than a 4
pound model airplane with explosive in it?


It would be a simple matter for the Raven UAV to be equipped with the
ability to deflect the horizontal stabilizer into a position that
would cause it to stall (as is done with free-flight model aircraft)
and return to earth.

It would suck, but so would a part of a 172 that fell off in flight. Are
you suggesting the banning of all aircraft above populated areas?

Was the Raven UAV certified by the FAA, like the Cessna 172? Is the
Raven UAV inspected by FAA certified mechanics like an airworthy
Cessna 172?

Are you unable to discern the difference between uncertified, unmanned
military hardware operated without reason over populated areas and FAA
certified, inspected, and maintained transport that must necessarily
be operated over populated areas to be useful?