Link to Army Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operations Manual

[Ensignnolo]

https://akocomm.us.army.mil/usapa/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_aa/pdf/fmi3_04x155.pdf

[madcobra]

Dear ,
I like to reading , but they asking for AKO password.....How can we reading it ?

[Ensignnolo]

Sorry about that, try this:
http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fmi3-04-155.pdf

[patrickegan]

After a quick peruse, I don’t know if this document should be posted in a public forum!!!

[mckaneorg]

After a quick peruse, I don’t know if this document should be posted in a public forum!!!

Checkout page 1... "Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited"

there does not appear to be anything classified in this document. I'm pretty sure the good stuff does not leave the secure net.

[patrickegan]

I saw that, but still I would say we err on the safe side. Why do we want to serve it up?

[typicalaimster]

......

[mckaneorg]

I saw that, but still I would say we err on the safe side. Why do we want to serve it up?


To each his own i guess. No reason to get into semantics. If its online, on the public side of the military network I would make a safe bet that its ok to republish.

For those of us that do this as a business, it does not hurt to see how the military uses checklists and protocol. Something we would all observe. When the FAA looks at the group as a whole in the next few months I am sure the ones who keep good logs and good protocol will stand in the light.

Consider the above link a form of training. :)

[patrickegan]

Consider the above link a form of training. :)

Who for? hodgie!!! Glad I’m not in the field over there!

[Kwesdog]

I fly Shadow 200s (RQ-7Bs) for the army plus I fly a Micro UAV called the TACMAV so if you guys have questions that I can answer please send a PM. BTW I am in Iraq as we speak so if I dont get back to you right away thats why.

Harry

[chrisgood]

I would ask everyone to please refrain from releasing any data regarding any UAV manuals or associated data. The US Army TUAV Program office has become aware of this data that was released to the public, and is challenging its release.

Thank you,

Chris Good
Lead Avionics Engineer
Shadow TUAV
AAI Corporation

[radiohound]

I would ask everyone to please refrain from releasing any data regarding any UAV manuals or associated data. The US Army TUAV Program office has become aware of this data that was released to the public, and is challenging its release.


Perhaps it would help if the Headquarters of the US Army refrained from releasing this information to the public. That is ... if they did not want the public to see them.

Just an idea, I am not in Intelligence, so perhaps this is beyond my scope.

Walter

[LukeZ]

I would ask everyone to please refrain from releasing any data regarding any UAV manuals or associated data. The US Army TUAV Program office has become aware of this data that was released to the public, and is challenging its release.No offense, but why should we take your word for it that the Army is challenging the release of this document? Can you point us to some more information on their challenge?

I'm not knocking you, I'm sincerely curious.


Luke

[HELModels]

If your not in the U.S. Army then why do you need it all laid out real nice for you? Is this the only Army manual available? Put the kabash on those too. Anything that is part of the defense system that could provide aid and comfort/intelligence(I say keep em guessing) shouldnt be provided.

[chrisgood]

I am senior engineer with the Shadow TUAV program. I am also a member of RC Groups and found these posts while looking through the forums. I thought that this data should not have been made public in the first place and alerted my corporate security office to please check it out - better to be safe than sorry. They alerted the US Army TUAV Program Management Office (PMO) security department who checked the documents and found that it had been released outside of their knowledge, and also thought it should not be public. They began the formal process to have it taken out of public release. The TUAV PMO called my corporate security, who called me and asked me to post a simple statement asking everyone to not release or advertise links to data that may be damaging to our warfighting ability. Other than that, I do not have formal documents to present to you.

BTW, I am also an Air Force Academy graduate and was an Air Force officer for 12 years before joining AAI as a senior engineer. I do have the military experience to judge these things.

Chris

No offense, but why should we take your word for it that the Army is challenging the release of this document? Can you point us to some more information on their challenge?

I'm not knocking you, I'm sincerely curious.


Luke

[LukeZ]

Anything that is part of the defense system that could provide aid and comfort/intelligence(I say keep em guessing) shouldnt be provided.I agree - but please keep in mind that it was none other than the US Army themselves who provided this to the public. If they made a mistake and want to retract it, fine, and I hope everyone on these boards will support that. But if you're upset it was released and disseminated, then take it up with them.

Please don't ask us to take care of the Army/military/federal government, or shoulder a responsibility that is theirs. They're big boys and can handle themselves. I don't buy in to the argument that I need to be even more vigilant than my government is, or censor myself even above and beyond what is required.

Follow the law, certainly. But while you may believe it makes you extra special or super-patriotic to drive 30 in a 60 mile zone, I just think it makes you a nuisance.


Luke

[HELModels]

I only gave my opinion. Why the Bitchieness?

[LukeZ]

The "Bitchieness" comes from the fact that participants in this UAV forum are continuously being told to self-censor. Perhaps that was not the spirit in which your comments were made, and if so, I apologize for coming across rudely.

On the other hand, yours were not the first comments of that sort heard here, and they typically come from the same judgmental attitude, in my experience. Even the very creation of this forum was a battle. We had dozens of votes against it, not because people felt RCGroups didn't need another forum, or because it was redundant information already covered in a different forum, but simply because those people felt this is a topic that should not be publicly discussed.

Personally, I disagree with that view. The whole point of RCGroups and its many forums is to discuss things publicly, to share information with others, and to spread knowledge. In fact, it seems to me that is also a crucial component in the maintenance of a free and democratic society in general.

There are obviously differences of opinion on this matter. I would prefer it if those in the self-censor camp could give better reasons for why they think we should be quiet, other than that it’s our patriotic duty or some other hokey. If they could, for example, produce evidence that what we discuss here materially assists the terrorists, or give us some other compelling reason other than a misguided appeal to our consciences, then maybe I wouldn’t be so bitchy when I keep hearing it. But I have yet to hear any such compelling arguments.

Information can be powerful and those who deal with it need to do so responsibly. I don’t have a problem with that. If anyone wants to point out some irresponsibility, then I’ll take it with due respect (though in this case, the only potentially irresponsible party was the US Army). But if such an argument can’t be made, then be warned that turning to “let’s be safe for safe’s sake” crap will make me bitchy. ;) Frankly, it smacks of big brother if you ask me.


Luke

[lvspark]

At least the thread is still here....

This week on RCG, I posted a link to scan eagle specs that is publicly posted on their website and I was accused, tried, hung, and put out to dry shortly before the thread disappeared....

Looked just like a spec sheet to me, but others made it out like I was giving away confidential info to the international community???

[LukeZ]

At least the thread is still here....

This week on RCG, I posted a link to scan eagle specs that is publicly posted on their website and I was accused, tried, hung, and put out to dry shortly before the thread disappeared....

Looked just like a spec sheet to me, but others made it out like I was giving away confidential info to the international community???It sounds like, similar to this thread, people accused you of not being even more responsible than Boeing/Insitu itself. They're protesting the wrong person, if they even have a legitimate qualm to begin with...

It couldn't possibly have been this spec sheet (http://www.insitugroup.com/documents/ScanEagleA-15_000.pdf), could it? ;)


Luke

[typicalaimster]

Well it's not just the military stuff. I did a presentation for a local high school and then again for a model club. I had someone video the presentation. I was told not to release the video to the general public for 'security' reasons.

[XJet]

You think you guys got it bad in respect to censorship, check this (http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/) out

[kd7ost]

You think you guys got it bad in respect to censorship, check this (http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/) out

Geeze,

You think that's bad, I tried to make a Thermo Nuclear weapon in my basement and I got shut down too. :rolleyes:

Dan

[ImaBiggles]

Hmm. Bush can 'leak' information about a CIA operative through Scooter to quell opposition to the war with Iraq before the war began, but we are asked to refrain from discussion on information distributed to the public by -perhaps-incompetent beurocrats. Got to love it. Next we will all have to talk in new-speak backwards so we forget the info we read in the manual.

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

[patrickegan]

Plame isn’t getting shot at by snipers in the field.

[LukeZ]

Plame isn’t getting shot at by snipers in the field.Last I checked this forum wasn't about how to become a sniper, either.

Sniper != UAV


Luke

[LukeZ]

But I'm sorry, maybe you were only saying you think it's ok to betray a CIA operative if it won't get them killed. Pretty generous of you.

What about her contacts in foreign countries? Once she was outed they might well have been killed or tortured in prison.

This is getting way off topic now, but the point is, Patrick, your pithy comments make no sense and rarely do.


Luke

[ImaBiggles]

But I'm sorry, maybe you were only saying you think it's ok to betray a CIA operative if it won't get them killed. Pretty generous of you.

What about her contacts in foreign countries? Once she was outed they might well have been killed or tortured in prison.

This is getting way off topic now, but the point is, Patrick, your pithy comments make no sense and rarely do.


Luke

well if you look at his blurb under his avatar - he fully admits to being a jackass so perhaps we just consider the source . . . .

[patrickegan]

Look, I’m sorry but this isn’t a mental health forum so I can’t help you with problem as we would be off topic! I do however know that the conditions over in the “sandbox” (pertains to topic) are a little hotter then behind a desk in Washington! But while on topic you are showing more concern for a person who wasn’t in harms way then the people who are in harms way! Yeah, that makes perfect sense! You friend are very pithy indeed!!!

[LukeZ]

But while on topic you are showing more concern for a person who wasn’t in harms way then the people who are in harms way! Yeah, that makes perfect sense!Patrick, please point me to a single instance in which any member of the coalition forces over in the "sandbox," or anywhere else in the world for that matter, have ever been harmed or threatened by an unmanned aerial vehicle, let alone by the knowledge gained from reading this forum.

Your assertion that the goings-on here are harmful to our troops is beyond unsubstantiated. Then, when we don't agree to censor the goings-on here, you accuse us of not showing adequate concern. You are engaged in a rather clear, logical fallacy. It has not been established that the information shared here in any way jeopardizes anybody, and until you can prove otherwise, you can't logically accuse me of lack of concern.

Once you successfully prove that we are jeopardizing the troops, then you can feel free to accuse me of indifference, apathy, etc... Until then you have no logical ground to stand on. Your entire argument rests on an assumption that has not been shown to be true.



Luke

[radiohound]

I would ask everyone to please refrain from releasing any data regarding any UAV manuals or associated data. The US Army TUAV Program office has become aware of this data that was released to the public, and is challenging its release.

I have clicked the link to the documents. They are still located on the web.

Perhaps they are re-thinking this, as it has been almost two weeks since the US Army Headquarters was made aware that they published public documents that were demed fit for public viewing.

Alarming as it may seem. :rolleyes:

[typicalaimster]

I have clicked the link to the documents. They are still located on the web.

Perhaps they are re-thinking this, as it has been almost two weeks since the US Army Headquarters was made aware that they published public documents that were demed fit for public viewing.


I'd like to know how many people have now DOWNLOADED this document to a local copy. This topic when from the casual "Oh that's cool" to "OMG I better download this highly classified document"...

I think this thread (http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=509642) is more dangerous then this silly document.

[Lt.Smash]

Classified or not, this kind of data is probably already in the enemies hands, but do we need to make it that easy for them? But for those :censored: who are too chicken :censored: to fight and use IED on our boys, let them read whats going to blow their :censored: off!!

:censored: all of those Terriosts!! I hope UAVs serve all of them justice!!

[patrickegan]

Well, short of getting al-Zarqawi, on the blower or compromising other programs I don’t know exactly how I could satisfy you on the proof front. Maybe not you personally but others on the forum have been contacted and asked to provide information. It is known that people frequent these forums from countries that are not exactly friendly to the US.

http://image.rcuniverse.com/forum/upfiles/153011/Qo39825.jpg

(Sorry, but I don’t have time to find the BBC link)

Maybe, just maybe they came up with it all on their own! One big stroke of genius in the right cave, with the right goat and it all came together. :rolleyes:

[typicalaimster]

Classified or not, this kind of data is probably already in the enemies hands, but do we need to make it that easy for them?

Do we no.. Google has done the job for us (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=uav+operations+manual&btnG=Google+Search).. That is probably where someone found the information in the first place.

[patrickegan]

That’s fine! Congress, DoD, FAA an DHS aren’t trying to regulate them!!! Oh and before I forget they (Goggle) have plenty of money to hire lobbyist and lawyers.

[ImaBiggles]

Well, short of getting al-Zarqawi, on the blower or compromising other programs I don’t know exactly how I could satisfy you on the proof front. Maybe not you personally but others on the forum have been contacted and asked to provide information. It is known that people frequent these forums from countries that are not exactly friendly to the US.

http://image.rcuniverse.com/forum/upfiles/153011/Qo39825.jpg

(Sorry, but I don’t have time to find the BBC link)

Maybe, just maybe they came up with it all on their own! One big stroke of genius in the right cave, with the right goat and it all came together. :rolleyes:

That was one of the most humorous news stories when it came out, well over a year ago. Drone? UAV? My goodness - it is a $90 wing dragon RTF from china!! The thing barely hauls its own battery pack in the air. I always thought it was nice of the terrorists to display the frequency flag on the TX as it is shown in the photo. Keeps them from shooting down another toy being flown in the area. I love my country and we can be far better than we have been in the recent past - but when people become sheep and are ignorant of world politics and simply believe what the Government slops them - we are in a downward spiral. Additionally, when you spout racist and stereotypical gibberish that you did in the quoted post – it shows that, not only are you ignorant of the issues, you are very happy to wave your ignorance out in the open. I do thank you for that, it makes it easier for one to identify the sheep.

[patrickegan]

Definitely not as bright as the experts who get their talking points from the Al Franken power hour!

And save the racism pap for the kiddies cause no ones buying!!!

[radiohound]

Seeing as it is the Government, and the Army's job to determine what documents are fit for the public, and what should be kept confidential, I have an idea.

Instead of leaving the censorship of government documents for the public to decide, why don't we rely on the government to decide what is and what is not confidential. Otherwise, aren't we just putting our heads in the sand to a document that actually is available ... ahem... from the government site?

Perhaps they should consider a <click here if you are not a terrorist> disclaimer before the link.

[LukeZ]

Well, at least with regards to you, Patrick, I'm of the mind of burying the hatchet. You're a regular fixture around here and will continue to be, and besides we have some of the same interests (RCAP). I don't think you're a bad guy. I get a little steamed sometimes, but I'd rather not have this thread turn into an all out flame war, like so many others have.

Although you haven't said all these things in this thread exactly, I have listened to you before, in other threads, and I know you're concerned about several things, not the least of them being the potential regulation of the hobby if the powers that be think we can't behave. That's a legitimate concern. Naturally I think there is also a legitimate debate on how likely that might be, and to what degree, and to what extent any of us could prevent it or make it worse by the things we do - but nevertheless I imagine everyone here is concerned about it on some level, regardless of their various takes on it overall.

And I agree in general that "loose lips sink ships," although I don't think anything of that nature has actually ever occured in this forum, or even come close. But you might say, let's be extra cautious nonetheless, and there's a certain reasonableness to that. So we can agree to disagree on how far is appropriate to go, but in the end I imagine we share the same basic values. In fact, I think it would be ridiculous to assume we all don't - for example, I'm sure no one here wishes harm on our troops overseas. Most of us probably even know someone who's been there.

I suppose my general take on things, as formed by my personal experiences over the last few years, is to be extremely concerned about the tendency to suppress the dissemination of information under the guise of "homeland security." (Sounds an awful lot like "protecting the fatherland," eh? :rolleyes: ) Yeah, I listen to Al Franken and I could probably spout some things about our civil liberties being under attack, same as him. That's just my view. Given what we've seen in this country I feel it's warranted. At the same time, I can see your side of things. Hopefully you can see mine as well.

So anyhow, those are some reconciliatory words from moi. I enjoy the healthy debate we have here, it's not something you're going to get in the foamies forum for sure! :p But I guess for myself I need to work on not gettings so riled up about it. After all, you gave us your advice, I don't have to take it! ;) :D


Luke

[patrickegan]

It’s nothing personal with any of you guys (even if you listen to Al) but we are at war for Pete sake. Secondly I don’t want to come off like the grand Pooh-Bah know it all guy, so all I’m saying is let’s be discrete and use the old noodle. The powers that be do read and monitor these forums so let’s not give the government people anything to quote! God is it embarrassing! P

[rixkix]

So what if we're quoted saying we thought a publicly released document was neat? We're here to talk about UAVs. If someone had leaked secret information, I could understand the attitude, but this is public.

[patrickegan]

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=515233

[rixkix]

You're right, Patrick - the cat's been out of the bag for a while now.