On Sat, 10 May 2008 13:57:20 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

Call me unimaginative, but I am unable to envision such a mission that
would justify domestic operation. Are you able to provide an example
or two of such missions?


Okay. You're unimaginative.

The Raven's mission is reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition.
For the training to use the Raven in those missions to be effective it must
be done in areas with people, vehicles, and structures similar to the areas
where it is used operationally.


I don't believe it is very prudent of the military to operate
equipment designed for use in the war theater(s) domestically. If you
do, we have a difference of opinion.



Why do you think the military operates their UAV over populated areas?


Because it's convenient and expedient (if the hazards are
disregarded).

It never ocurred to you that it was needed for effective training?


I can think of alternate settings, such as over a military
installation, where the same sort of training might be conducted
without exposing civilians to the hazards it may cause. But we
wouldn't want to expose military families to the potential hazard of a
runaway UAV, would we? Let's just

What hazards are you imagining?

I believe an out of control UAV, as occurred in this instance, is a
potential hazard. If you disagree, please permit me to fly a Raven
UAV into your windshield at freeway speeds, or into a group of school
children on a playground. :-(



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


Perhaps that will change if/when a military UAV causes harm to one or
two.


How many hours has the Raven logged with how many mishaps?


I have no idea, other than this one incident. Is that information
publicly accessible with or without a FOIA request?