USAF Loses UAV Over Populated Area In Training Exercise

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .

Sticks and stones, fjukkwit.


I can do this for a looong time,,



Bertie

Oh I'm sure you could do this forever. Most people that have no life
other than the Usenet find it easy. Why would you be any different.

This is what losers like you and MX do.


Nah, only when i have nothing better to do.

you really don;t take up all tht much time.


Bertie


Oh no, I won't. I won't waste the time. But anyone can look at your
time and date stamps, and message count - and it's clear you are both
obsessed and have no life. Just like Mx.


Oh no! I've been found out!

Oh well, I can always take solace in the fact that there's an even
bigger loser following me around.



Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

You couldn't stop if your life depended on it, could you Squirty ****drip?


Squirt, squirt.

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

You couldn't stop if your life depended on it, could you Squirty
****drip?


Squirt, squirt.




We'll find out. I have to die sometime!

Unfortunatley for you, I'm in positively rude health.


Bertie

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


This one was reported to head east immediately after launch, so
it's likely that check wasn't performed in this instance.

....says the man with the massive assumptions.

Perhaps a
little more training would be prudent before the military unleashes
its hardware in domestic operations.

The irony runs rampant.

--
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


Is the urban area you mention green and swampy like the site in
Florida?

You obviously have never been to Ocala.

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

On May 10, 4:58 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message

...



Whether there is a reg or not, tanks and humvees do not conduct
training missions on public highways. Same with aerial combat
training. So Larry does have a point about military UAV training over
neighborhoods.

ACM is frequently conducted in MOAs that overly populated areas

I would assume that they take every reasonable efforts to avoid
having to land in urban areas in case of engine trouble, just ilke GA
pilots are required to do. It does seem odd to me that there is a need
to fly these UAVs over populated areas when we have vast open spaces
in this country. Especially in FL, it is not hard to get to the open
waters where no one would notice if you fly a UAV all day long.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2008 00:35:04 GMT, wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
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 what precisely would be the difference between a "peacetime" UAV
and a "war theater" UAV?


One would be designed to be safe for domestic operation over, and in
proximity to, the public; the other would be designed for its efficacy
in the war theater with public safeguard concerns subordinate..

Nice arm waving.

Now, what precisely would be the difference between a "peacetime" UAV
and a "war theater" UAV?

What design parameters would be different?

If you have nothing concrete in mind, you are just babbling.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
On May 10, 1:03 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2008 00:35:04 GMT, wrote in
:



Larry Dighera wrote:
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 what precisely would be the difference between a "peacetime" UAV
and a "war theater" UAV?

One would be designed to be safe for domestic operation over, and in
proximity to, the public; the other would be designed for its efficacy
in the war theater with public safeguard concerns subordinate..

I will go way out on a limb here and assume you know the military
doesn't use live ordinance for training outside of ranges established
for that purpose.

I would certainly hope that to be the policy, but I don't see how it
relates to the Raven UAV in this instance. The Raven is equipped with
two video cameras, and no ordinance that I am aware of.

Whether there is a reg or not, tanks and humvees do not conduct
training missions on public highways. Same with aerial combat
training. So Larry does have a point about military UAV training over
neighborhoods.

Wrong.

The military trys to avoid paved roads with heavy tracked vehicles
as they have a tendancy to tear up the road, even with road tracks,
but they do on occasion run them on public roads.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:45:03 GMT, wrote in
:

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?

Can you cite a source for the Raven's "guaranteed interference free
operating frequency?" I doubt there exists a radio link that is
totally immune to jamming or interference.

See www.fcc.gov

The military gets exclusive frequencies for most of their stuff.

Most RC modelers will check the aircraft's controls before launching
it. This one was reported to head east immediately after launch, so
it's likely that check wasn't performed in this instance. Perhaps a
little more training would be prudent before the military unleashes
its hardware in domestic operations.

Do you have any basis for this pulled out of your ass assumption or is
it just more of your taking pot shots at the military every chance you
get?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2008 19:02:06 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:


"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?


I'm saying the design criteria for equipment used in the war theater
is substantially different from that of equipment designed for use
domestically. I presume the necessity to safeguard the public in
domestic operations would not be nearly as paramount for war
apparatus.

You keep babbling that nonsense over and over yet when pressed for
specific details, all you do is babble and arm wave the same nonsense.

Name some concrete design criteria other than being built to mil spec
which means everything is tested and test results are kept.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.