USAF Loses UAV Over Populated Area In Training Exercise

On Fri, 9 May 2008 19:24:30 -0400, "John T"
wrote in
:

"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?

Apparently the Raven UAV is capable of 60 mph flight, but only for
about 10 minutes. Please forgive my error. It just wasn't intuitive
for me to expect a $30,000.00 piece of hardware to have such a limited
out-and-back range. Oh well...

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.

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.

On May 9, 6:51*pm, 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 unless the military can show good cause to train over cities,
their UAV training should be restricted to unpopulated areas.

We happen to be fighting a war in an Urban area right now. Do think
that it might be helpful for the troops to train in an urban
enviroment?

On Sat, 10 May 2008 10:52:06 -0700 (PDT), Gig 601XL Builder
wrote in
:


We happen to be fighting a war in an Urban area right now.

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

Do think that it might be helpful for the troops to train in an urban
enviroment?

Sure. How about over their barracks, or would that be too
inconvenient?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

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 assure you UAVs used for domestic operations are safe.



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.


Only UAVs operated by DOJ are equipped with ordinance.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

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

Now you are confusing the issue. Are we supposed to disregard the article or
the plain meaning of your own words?

Vaughn

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

I'm saying the design criteria for equipment used in the war theater
is substantially different from that of equipment designed for use
domestically.


Please provide verifiable dovumentation supporting that assertion.



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?


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.



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? What
hazards are you imagining?



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?



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


How do you see it?


Realistically.

On Sat, 10 May 2008 13:41:17 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

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 assure you UAVs used for domestic operations are safe.


Anyone who believes that an uncontrollable UAV is safe for domestic
operations is unqualified to assure much of anything, IMNSHO.



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.


Only UAVs operated by DOJ are equipped with ordinance.


You mean domestically operated, right? You wouldn't want to confuse
poor Mr. Simon. :-)

So the DOJ is patrolling our domestic boarders with live ordinance? If
so, it begs the question, what potential hazard do their UAVs pose to
our citizens in the event they become uncontrollable or the command
link is compromised by bad guys? Please don't attempt to get me to
believe that that is not possible.

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Sat, 10 May 2008 13:41:17 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
. ..

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 assure you UAVs used for domestic operations are safe.


Anyone who believes that an uncontrollable UAV is safe for domestic
operations is unqualified to assure much of anything, IMNSHO.



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.


Only UAVs operated by DOJ are equipped with ordinance.


You mean domestically operated, right? You wouldn't want to confuse
poor Mr. Simon. :-)

So the DOJ is patrolling our domestic boarders with live ordinance? If
so, it begs the question, what potential hazard do their UAVs pose to
our citizens in the event they become uncontrollable or the command
link is compromised by bad guys? Please don't attempt to get me to
believe that that is not possible.



Wow, it's like watching the dumbest Cobra fight the Dumbest mongoose
ever and they're both using water pistols filled with grape juice as
weapons.


Bertie

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?