USAF Loses UAV Over Populated Area In Training Exercise

Should military hardware be permitted to operate over the heads of
citizens in the CONUS?


So, the USAF is permitted to fly UAVs in training missions over
populated areas?

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...28496&t=h&z=15
Who approved this? Why can't the military conduct training missions
where there is less danger of consequences to private citizens?

Doesn't the USAF UAV have a means of destructing the UAV in the event
it becomes uncontrollable? What would be the likely result if one of
these boy-toys hit the windshield of a car at freeway speeds?


http://www.local6.com/news/16189342/detail.html
Air Force Spy Drone Vanishes In Central Fla.

POSTED: 1:27 pm EDT May 7, 2008
UPDATED: 9:23 am EDT May 8, 2008

* Video: Air Force Spy Drone Vanishes
http://www.local6.com/news/16189342/detail.html#

OCALA, Fla. -- U.S. Air Force officials were searching for a
unmanned spy air craft that vanished in the Marion County sky
Tuesday.

The Air Force was conducting training with the UAV Raven at about
4 p.m. Tuesday when the aircraft was launched from an open field
in the 500 block of Southeast 25th Avenue in Ocala.

Upon launch, the Raven immediately turned eastward and failed to
respond to all commands from the controllers, Ocala police said.

The Raven, which has an approximate wingspan of 6 feet, landed at
an unknown location, possibly in the Ocala National Forest, police
said.

Air Force officials who said they want to recover the Raven are
seeking help in locating it.

The Raven can fly up to 6.2 miles at speeds up to 60 mph,
according to officials.



http://www.defense-update.com/products/r/raven.htm
Ravens are supporting Army units in Iraq and Afghanistan,
enhancing U.S. Army, Special Operation (SOCOM) forces and other
services, performing reconnaissance, surveillance, and target
acquisition (RSTA). Since 2004, the Army bought 1,000 Raven
systems, comprising of 3,000 air vehicles. ...




http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...the-field-067/
Raven UAV Draws Raves From The Field

24-Feb-2005 05:38 EST
Weighing in at 4.5 pounds, with a 3-foot body and a 5-foot
wingspan, the Raven UAV is so small that it’s launched by hand.

Field Success
AIR_UAV_RQ-11_Raven.jpg
RQ-11 Raven

The RQ-11 Raven is a lighter, smaller successor to AeroVironment’s
FQM-151 Pointer UAV, which was used in Desert Storm (1991) and is
still in use with some Special Forces units.

Maj. Chris Brown told the Army News Service that “We had one
commander’s team find an IED [DID: a do-it-yourself land mine] on
its first mission, and the commander has been sold ever since.”

As a subsequent StrategyPage article has noted:

“What makes this little (4.2 pounds) bird so popular is its low
cost ($25,000 each) and performance (can stay in the air for 80
minutes at a time). The Raven is battery powered, and carries a
color day vidcam, or a two color infrared night camera. Both
cameras broadcast real time video back to the operator, who
controls the Raven via a laptop computer. The Raven can go as fast
as 90 kilometers an hour, but usually cruises between 40 and 50.
It can go as far as 15 kilometers from its controller on the
ground, and usually flies a preprogrammed route, using GPS for
navigation. ...

“One of the best pilots in the 1st Cav. is a cook, but that
doesn’t mean we don’t have … scouts operating the Raven,” he said.
“Some of these kids have been raised with Playstation in their
hands and are better able to handle watching a screen and
controlling the aircraft.” ...





http://video.aol.com/video-detail/ra...ing/2806087147
Raven UAV flight and landing video

The Raven is light UAV equipped with several camera (including
thermal, I thin...k) that can be used over a disaster site to
provide overhead views. It relies on an electric motor and
batteries that provide about 30 minutes of loiter. Its GPS allows
it to fly a pattern which minimizes operator requirements. The
most interesting thing is that it is designed to shed kinetic
energy on landing by falling apart. Filmed at Disaster City, Texas
in 2006 during the NIST/DHS Response Robot Evaluation Exercise.





http://www.difesa.it/NR/rdonlyres/43...CTOBER2007.pdf
DIREZIONE GENERALE PER GLI ARMAMENTI AERONAUTICI
(ARMAEREO)
N.12 Very Close Range RAVEN UAV Systems and relevant initial
logistic
Contracting authority: Armaereo – 1st Department – 4th Division
Contact tel.: +39 06 4986 5688
Future purchase ref. N°: N.P. 041/06/018 dated 13/05/2006
Procurement date: 31 Dec 2007
QA standards: ISO 9001-2000
Summary of requirements: n.12 Very Close Range UAV “Raven” Systems
and associated initial logistic.
Expression of interest due: N/A
Other information: The procurement will be excuted through a sole
source contract with Aero Vironment Inc. 69, Moreland Rd – Simi
Valey – California – 93065 – USA , which is the desingner
and manufacturer of the Raven UAV System. This contract
contnues the Raven systems procurement already made in
2005 by IT MoD – Direzione Generale Armamenti
Terrestri.
=================================

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Should military hardware be permitted to operate over the heads of
citizens in the CONUS?


Of course.

Larry Dighera wrote:
Should military hardware be permitted to operate over the heads of
citizens in the CONUS?


Yes. Just as those who fly model airplanes and real airplanes for that
can do so.


So, the USAF is permitted to fly UAVs in training missions over
populated areas?

Yes




http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...28496&t=h&z=15
Who approved this? Why can't the military conduct training missions
where there is less danger of consequences to private citizens?


Civilians conduct training missions over private citizens all the time
in aircraft that way a lot more than 4 pounds.


Doesn't the USAF UAV have a means of destructing the UAV in the event
it becomes uncontrollable? What would be the likely result if one of
these boy-toys hit the windshield of a car at freeway speeds?



So some how in your mind a 4 pound model airplane is worse than a 4
pound model airplane with explosive in it?

It would suck, but so would a part of a 172 that fell off in flight. Are
you suggesting the banning of all aircraft above populated areas?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


Should military hardware be permitted to operate over the heads of
citizens in the CONUS?

Yes, just like GA and airlines should be permitted, but "Ocala National
Forest" doesn't sound very populated.

[snip more typical Dighera anti-military bloviating]

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

On Fri, 9 May 2008 15:18:48 -0400, "John T"
wrote in
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


Should military hardware be permitted to operate over the heads of
citizens in the CONUS?

Yes, just like GA and airlines should be permitted,

The airlines and GA do not operate hardware DESIGNED FOR MILITARY USE
over the heads of the US populous.

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.

but "Ocala National Forest" doesn't sound very populated.


How does this sound:

The Air Force was conducting training with the UAV Raven at about
4 p.m. Tuesday when the aircraft was launched from an open field
in the 500 block of Southeast 25th Avenue in Ocala.

Had you bothered to examine the satellite image of the area in the
link I provided, you'd see that your assumption was erroneous.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...28496&t=h&z=15

[snip more typical Dighera anti-military bloviating]

Your choice to attempt to characterize my words as 'blovating,' while
providing me with a new word-of-the-day, was unfortunate, because
there was nothing pompous among them.

Why do you find it necessary to defend the military over the best
interests of the citizens of our noble nation?

On Fri, 09 May 2008 14:18:00 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
Should military hardware be permitted to operate over the heads of
citizens in the CONUS?


Yes. Just as those who fly model airplanes and real airplanes for that
can do so.


Normally model aircraft are operated over unpopulated areas at
designate fields. In fact, the American Modeling Association demands
that and more of model airplane operators:

http://www.modelaircraft.org/PDF-files/Memanual.PDF
RADIO CONTROL
1. All model flying shall be conducted in a manner to avoid over
flight of unprotected people.
2. I will have completed a successful radio equipment ground-range
check before the first flight of a new or repaired model aircraft.
3. I will not fly my model aircraft in the presence of spectators
until I become a proficient flier, unless I am assisted by an
experienced pilot.
4. At all flying sites a safety line or lines must be established,
in front of which all flying takes place. Only personnel associated
with flying the model aircraft are allowed at or in front of the
safety line. In the case of airshows or demonstrations a straight
safety line must be established. An area away from the safety line
must be maintained for spectators. Intentional flying behind the
safety line is prohibited.
5. I will operate my model aircraft using only radio-control
frequencies currently allowed by the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC). Only individuals properly licensed by the FCC are authorized to
operate equipment on Amateur Band frequencies.
6. I will not knowingly operate my model aircraft within three (3)
miles of any preexisting flying site without a frequency-management
agreement. A frequency management agreement may be an allocation of
frequencies for each site, a day-use agreement between sites, or
testing which determines that no interference exists. A
frequency-management agreement may exist between two or more AMA
chartered clubs, AMA clubs and individual AMA members, or individual
AMA members. Frequency-management agreements, including an
interference test report if the agreement indicates no interference
exists, will be signed by all parties and copies provided to AMA
Headquarters.
7. With the exception of events flown under official AMA
Competition Regulations rules, excluding takeoff and landing, no
powered model may be flown outdoors closer than 25 feet to any
individual, except for the pilot and the pilot’s helper(s) located at
the flightline.
8. Under no circumstances may a pilot or other person touch a
model aircraft in flight while it is still under power, except to
divert it from striking an individual.
9. Radio-controlled night flying is limited to low-performance
model aircraft (less than 100 mph). The model aircraft must be
equipped with a lighting system which clearly defines the aircraft’s
attitude and direction at all times.
10. The operator of a radio-controlled model aircraft shall
control it during the entire flight, maintaining visual contact
without enhancement other than by corrective lenses that are
prescribed for the pilot. No model aircraft shall be equipped with
devices which allow it to be flown to a selected location which is
beyond the visual range of the pilot.


So, the USAF is permitted to fly UAVs in training missions over
populated areas?

Yes


I can see where military UAV operation may be appropriate in times of
emergency, but they were training, and completely lost control of the
aircraft, and had no way to protect innocent citizens from the hazard
it caused. Wouldn't it be more prudent to conduct military TRAINING
over unpopulated areas? Was there some specific need to train over a
populated area?



http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...28496&t=h&z=15
Who approved this? Why can't the military conduct training missions
where there is less danger of consequences to private citizens?


Civilians conduct training missions over private citizens all the time
in aircraft that way [sic] a lot more than 4 pounds.


They don't do it with hardware designed for military use, unless it
has proven it is not a hazard. They don't do it without a responsible
PIC at the helm.

Do you believe, that it is appropriate for the military to loose their
uncontrollable unmanned aerial technology among the populous for no
good reason?


Doesn't the USAF UAV have a means of destructing the UAV in the event
it becomes uncontrollable? What would be the likely result if one of
these boy-toys hit the windshield of a car at freeway speeds?


So some how in your mind a 4 pound model airplane is worse than a 4
pound model airplane with explosive in it?


It would be a simple matter for the Raven UAV to be equipped with the
ability to deflect the horizontal stabilizer into a position that
would cause it to stall (as is done with free-flight model aircraft)
and return to earth.

It would suck, but so would a part of a 172 that fell off in flight. Are
you suggesting the banning of all aircraft above populated areas?

Was the Raven UAV certified by the FAA, like the Cessna 172? Is the
Raven UAV inspected by FAA certified mechanics like an airworthy
Cessna 172?

Are you unable to discern the difference between uncertified, unmanned
military hardware operated without reason over populated areas and FAA
certified, inspected, and maintained transport that must necessarily
be operated over populated areas to be useful?

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2008 15:18:48 -0400, "John T"
wrote in
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


Should military hardware be permitted to operate over the heads of
citizens in the CONUS?

Yes, just like GA and airlines should be permitted,

The airlines and GA do not operate hardware DESIGNED FOR MILITARY USE
over the heads of the US populous.

What is the difference between an airplane designed to carry guns
and bombs and an airplane designed to carry people and cargo?

Are military aircraft subject to the wings falling off in flight?

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".

The US military has been training over populated areas since not too
long after the invention of the airplane.

Would it shock you to know that during the Cold War USAF SAC bombers
regularly did training bomb runs on most major US cities while USA ADA
missle sites trained to defend against such bomb runs?



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


The airlines and GA do not operate hardware DESIGNED FOR MILITARY USE
over the heads of the US populous.

This "military use" is the same purpose as many (dare I say most?) GA
flights: Sightseeing.

Is there some specific reason the military MUST operate their UAV over
populated areas?

Do you know the specific reason for this specific training flight?

Your question can easily be changed to (and often is): "Is there some
specific reason GA planes MUST operate over populated areas?"

Had you bothered to examine the satellite image of the area in the
link I provided, you'd see that your assumption was erroneous.

It was your post, not my assumption, that listed the Ocala National Forest
as the likely termination point.

Why do you find it necessary to defend the military over the best
interests of the citizens of our noble nation?

The better question is: Why do you find it necessary to take every
opportunity to denigrate the military defending our noble nation?

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

On Fri, 9 May 2008 17:27:09 -0400, "John T"
wrote in
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


Had you bothered to examine the satellite image of the area in the
link I provided, you'd see that your assumption was erroneous.

It was your post, not my assumption, that listed the Ocala National Forest
as the likely termination point.


The information I cited clearly stated:

the aircraft was launched from an open field
in the 500 block of Southeast 25th Avenue in Ocala.

And I provided a link to the satellite image of the area.

The termination point of the out of control military Raven UAV flight
is immaterial. This UAV is capable of 60 mph flight for 30 minutes
from the information I read.


Why do you find it necessary to defend the military over the best
interests of the citizens of our noble nation?

The better question is: Why do you find it necessary to take every
opportunity to denigrate the military defending our noble nation?

I denigrated on one. Facts are facts.

Perhaps you'll be good enough to answer my question with a thoughtful
response instead of another question this time.

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.