USAF Loses UAV Over Populated Area In Training Exercise

On Fri, 9 May 2008 17:26:18 -0500, "Viperdoc"
wrote in
:

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

So, when you're unable to address the issues raised, you dismiss the
author? That's considerably easier than explaining how USAF UAV
_training_ over populated areas is warranted.

The sky is falling! Let's run around a scare everyone!

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?

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.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On May 9, 6:09*pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
So, when you're unable to address the issues raised, you dismiss the
author? *That's considerably easier than explaining how USAF UAV
_training_ over populated areas is warranted. *

Duck Season !
Wabbit Season !
Duck Season !
Wabbit Season !
Duck Season !
Wabbit Season !
Duck Season !
Wabbit Season !

On May 9, 6:23*pm, "Viperdoc"
The sky is falling! Let's run around a scare everyone!

Here is what really scares me ; If we go and remove all the elements
found to cause cancer in mice, someday we could be overrun by billions
of robust healthy rodents !
F Baum

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

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.


Why?



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


What's the mission of the UAV?

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


Why are you suddenly limiting the discussion to UAVs? Your original post
starts out with these words: "Should military hardware be permitted to operate
over the heads of citizens in the CONUS?" To me, that means ANY military
hardware. That would effectively prevent the Military from using any airport
that was not in the middle of some wasteland.

So if that is NOT what you meant to say, here is your golden opportunity to
issue a correction.

Vaughn

On Sat, 10 May 2008 12:54:19 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
wrote in
:


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


Why are you suddenly limiting the discussion to UAVs? Your original post
starts out with these words: "Should military hardware be permitted to operate
over the heads of citizens in the CONUS?" To me, that means ANY military
hardware. That would effectively prevent the Military from using any airport
that was not in the middle of some wasteland.

So if that is NOT what you meant to say, here is your golden opportunity to
issue a correction.

Vaughn




Your inference of my words is perfectly reasonable if the context of
the article is disregarded. The subject was UAVs after all.

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.

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.



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.

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?

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


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



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.

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




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.


How do you see it?