USAF Loses UAV Over Populated Area In Training Exercise

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

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.


UAVs are controllable.



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.


Live ordinance? Do you also believe the US Constitution is a "living
document"?


or·di·nance
-noun

1. an authoritative rule or law; a decree or command.
2. a public injunction or regulation: a city ordinance against excessive
horn blowing.
3. something believed to have been ordained, as by a deity or destiny.
4. Ecclesiastical. a. an established rite or ceremony.
b. a sacrament.
c. the communion.

ord·nance
-noun

1. cannon or artillery.
2. military weapons with their equipment, ammunition, etc.
3. the branch of an army that procures, stores, and issues, weapons,
munitions, and combat vehicles and maintains arsenals for their
development and testing.

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

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.

I haven't seen any UAV specifications, but the military system specifications
I have seen all have to be safe* for all applicable operations. This includes
training. And training almost always occurs CONUS.



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?

Training for urban combat would require training sorties over populated
areas.



*the definition of "safe" wrt aeronauatical systems is similar to civilian
criteria.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

On Sat, 10 May 2008 14:54:01 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:


UAVs are controllable.

As born out by this incident, some are and some aren't.

On Sat, 10 May 2008 15:54:27 -0400, Bob Noel
wrote in
:

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

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.

I haven't seen any UAV specifications, but the military system specifications
I have seen all have to be safe* for all applicable operations. This includes
training. And training almost always occurs CONUS.


I'm not opposed to military training within the CONUS. That would be
absurd.


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?

Training for urban combat would require training sorties over populated
areas.


Surely there are alternative populated areas where the general public
might not be subject to runaway UAV hazards.


*the definition of "safe" wrt aeronauatical systems is similar to civilian
criteria.

Do you care to provide the definition you mention?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

As born out by this incident, some are and some aren't.


No. The Raven is a controllable UAV, this incident does not change that.

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.

"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

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .

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

Yeah, that's a real crafty observation..

On Sat, 10 May 2008 14:54:01 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:

Do you also believe the US Constitution is a "living document"?

I believe that the US Constitution has been so trampled and
disregarded by the Bush administration, and former Attorney General
Ashcroft who found his carnal desires aroused to the point of draping
the bare bronze bosom of the statue of lady justice, that it is fast
becoming irrelevant. While I have won court cases based on
Constitutional guarantees, it is unclear if that will be possible in
the future.

Obligatory aviation content:
And I agree with the view I recall you have expressed in the past,
that the right to fly in the skies over our noble nation are not a
privilege, but a right.

On Sat, 10 May 2008 15:53:09 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

As born out by this incident, some are and some aren't.


No. The Raven is a controllable UAV, this incident does not change that.


Your logic escapes me.

How do you reconcile that opinion with the fact that the USAF found
the Raven UAV involved in the subject incident uncontrollable
immediately after it was launched. It would seem to me, that the
evidence it rather irrefutable against the Raven UAV being
controllable 100% of the time. So to the extent that that sort of
event, and any similar events, occur, it is obvious to an objective
observer that it not always controllable.