Mexico Border TFR No that bad

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Of course the AOPA disagrees and I completely understand the slippery slope
but let's face it the little plane should have no problem flying under the
TFR and the big planes should have no problem flying over or under it.
Since it looks like we are going to have to deal with UAV in the future we
are going to have to do something and a altitude block tha is reasonable
seems like it might be the best idea.


FAA establishes 300 nm-long TFR on southern U.S. border

The FAA has established a "temporary" flight restriction (TFR) along the
U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona and New Mexico. The TFR is in effect from
12,000 to 14,000 feet and is active from 5 p.m. until 7 a.m. daily. What
makes it so ominous is its size and duration.

The 300 nm-long corridor, 17-nm wide in most places, is to prevent U.S.
Customs and Border Patrol unmanned surveillance aircraft (UAVs) from
colliding with other civilian aircraft.

[Robert M. Gary]

You are probably correct for those of us that cross frequently. You can
only legally cross Northbound during business hours because you have to
meet the boarder guys at the U.S. airport. Night flying in Mexico is
also illegal for single engine planes.

However, there are some people who lives along the boarder who may find
it more bothersome in their daily domestic flying.

-Robert

[Ron Lee]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:

>Of course the AOPA disagrees and I completely understand the slippery slope
>but let's face it the little plane should have no problem flying under the
>TFR and the big planes should have no problem flying over or under it.
>Since it looks like we are going to have to deal with UAV in the future we
>are going to have to do something and a altitude block tha is reasonable
>seems like it might be the best idea.

I don't fly in that area but I don't see the problem. Even I can fly
over it. Did I read a NOTAM properly that states you can enter it
with a squawk code and talking to ATC?

Ron Lee

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> You are probably correct for those of us that cross frequently. You can
> only legally cross Northbound during business hours because you have to
> meet the boarder guys at the U.S. airport. Night flying in Mexico is
> also illegal for single engine planes.
>
> However, there are some people who lives along the boarder who may find
> it more bothersome in their daily domestic flying.
>
> -Robert
>

It will somewhat bothersome but I just don't think it is something that the
AOPA should spend its political capital on. This will not effect 99.99999%
of the pilots in the country and those that it does are only going to have
to delay there climb to altitude by a matter of minutes.

If AOPA hangs it out in a fight over this they're going to have zero allies
and some people who are normally allies of less government regulation are
going to be against them because they want tight borders.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
>
>>Of course the AOPA disagrees and I completely understand the slippery
>>slope
>>but let's face it the little plane should have no problem flying under the
>>TFR and the big planes should have no problem flying over or under it.
>>Since it looks like we are going to have to deal with UAV in the future we
>>are going to have to do something and a altitude block tha is reasonable
>>seems like it might be the best idea.
>
> I don't fly in that area but I don't see the problem. Even I can fly
> over it. Did I read a NOTAM properly that states you can enter it
> with a squawk code and talking to ATC?
>
> Ron Lee

I missed that but you are right. That makes it even less of a problem. Again
the AOPA ought to say this is fine and in the interest of both national
security and flight safety.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 14:07:35 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in
>::

>It will somewhat bothersome but I just don't think it is something that the
>AOPA should spend its political capital on. This will not effect 99.99999%
>of the pilots in the country and those that it does are only going to have
>to delay there climb to altitude by a matter of minutes.

And what of the precedent, flying UAVs incapable of complying with
see-and-avoid regulations, sets for future UAV operations in domestic
airspace below 18,000'? How would you feel if the DHS decided it
needed to employ UAVs for domestic spying throughout the country, and
it resulted in a proliferation of TRFs?

[Steve Foley]

Since they're probably spending ten bazillion dollars on each one, why not
make it eleven bazillion and put in a radar coupled to the autopilot (or
whatever fancy name they use for it) and give the UAVs see-and-avoid
capability?

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> And what of the precedent, flying UAVs incapable of complying with
> see-and-avoid regulations, sets for future UAV operations in domestic
> airspace below 18,000'? How would you feel if the DHS decided it
> needed to employ UAVs for domestic spying throughout the country, and
> it resulted in a proliferation of TRFs?
>

[sfb]

Sure. Our society will accept no risk. All a radar guided UAV has to do
is come within a gazillion miles of an airliner and the Congress
critters will be in full cry demanding investigations and heads to roll.

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:WKRBf.5391$Jn1.4145@trndny01...
> Since they're probably spending ten bazillion dollars on each one, why
> not
> make it eleven bazillion and put in a radar coupled to the autopilot
> (or
> whatever fancy name they use for it) and give the UAVs see-and-avoid
> capability?
>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>> And what of the precedent, flying UAVs incapable of complying with
>> see-and-avoid regulations, sets for future UAV operations in domestic
>> airspace below 18,000'? How would you feel if the DHS decided it
>> needed to employ UAVs for domestic spying throughout the country, and
>> it resulted in a proliferation of TRFs?
>>
>
>

[Dave S]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

>
>
> I missed that but you are right. That makes it even less of a problem. Again
> the AOPA ought to say this is fine and in the interest of both national
> security and flight safety.
>
>

I agree with you guys.. This is not the one to fight over. The only
think I can think of is "precedence setting" and "slippery slope" with
regards to AOPA's rationale in fighting this aggressively.

Dave

[John Doe]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
> Of course the AOPA disagrees and I completely understand the slippery
> slope but let's face it the little plane should have no problem flying
> under the TFR and the big planes should have no problem flying over or
> under it.
> Since it looks like we are going to have to deal with UAV in the future we
> are going to have to do something and a altitude block tha is reasonable
> seems like it might be the best idea.
>

THIS TFR is "not that bad". How long before LAPD wants a UAV to loiter over
L.A. ?


>
> FAA establishes 300 nm-long TFR on southern U.S. border
>

Anyone know why the TFR is ONLY 300nm long and doesn't stretch the entire
border of Mexico? We're pretty much telling the Mexicans exactly how to
avoid the very UAV that's trying to detect them....

[Peter R.]

John Doe > wrote:

> THIS TFR is "not that bad". How long before LAPD wants a UAV to loiter over
> L.A. ?

Imagine what the presence of a UAV chasing after some car would do to the
television ratings of live car chases.


> Anyone know why the TFR is ONLY 300nm long and doesn't stretch the entire
> border of Mexico? We're pretty much telling the Mexicans exactly how to
> avoid the very UAV that's trying to detect them....

Perhaps they are equipped with the ability to see and detect at a much
larger range than they need to fly?

--
Peter

[Robert M. Gary]

The most interesting part of this is the cost of the UAV. Many times
that of a C182 with crew. I don't understand why they don't just get a
couple 182 crews with similar equipment installed.

-Robert

[Jay Beckman]

"John Doe" > wrote in message
news:EtTBf.13656$Dh.4778@dukeread04...
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> Of course the AOPA disagrees and I completely understand the slippery
>> slope but let's face it the little plane should have no problem flying
>> under the TFR and the big planes should have no problem flying over or
>> under it.
>> Since it looks like we are going to have to deal with UAV in the future
>> we are going to have to do something and a altitude block tha is
>> reasonable seems like it might be the best idea.
>>
>

> THIS TFR is "not that bad". How long before LAPD wants a UAV to loiter
> over > L.A. ?

What could a UAV add that all the news helos don't already provide?

> Anyone know why the TFR is ONLY 300nm long and doesn't stretch the entire
> border of Mexico? We're pretty much telling the Mexicans exactly how to
> avoid the very UAV that's trying to detect them....

Looking at the enclosed area using Golden Eagle Flight Prep, the far western
end of the TFR butts up against the Goldwater Bombing Range (an inhospitable
area to be sure, but only slightly more so than the entire Agua Prieta area
as a whole...) and at the east end, you are beginning to get near the El
Paso, Texas area.

Jay B

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 18:03:52 -0500, "John Doe" >
wrote in <EtTBf.13656$Dh.4778@dukeread04>::

>
>Anyone know why the TFR is ONLY 300nm long and doesn't stretch the entire
>border of Mexico?

As I recall from the RFP, two UAVs were required. Initially the TFR
was about 120 miles, IIRC. I presume, with the TFR now 300 miles
long, the second UAV is on-line.

>We're pretty much telling the Mexicans exactly how to
>avoid the very UAV that's trying to detect them....

How would they do that? I am confident the UAV will detect human
targets unless they are covered with reflective mylar blankets
perhaps. That leaves the daylight hours which are probably adequately
patrolled from observation satellites overhead?

Or are you referring to the particular stretch of border that is
defined in the TFR? Perhaps the BP has the remainder of the border
adequately patrolled? More than likely, the section of border
selected was a result of the proximity of the existing military
facilities.

Once DHS has had an opportunity to judge the effectiveness of these
first two, I would expect them to be armed with missiles and deployed
along the entire CONUS perimeter and DC and ....

[Peter Duniho]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The most interesting part of this is the cost of the UAV. Many times
> that of a C182 with crew. I don't understand why they don't just get a
> couple 182 crews with similar equipment installed.

Because the people making the rules don't have any friends in high places
manufacturing 182s and training the crews to fly them.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:46:26 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>
>Because the people making the rules don't have any friends in high places
>manufacturing 182s and training the crews to fly them.

Was Jack Abramoff ever employed by General Atomics?

[sfb]

That idea was beaten to death a few days ago. There are a bunch of
challenges like the C182 being able to carry the fuel and sensors
needed. The TFR is night time so the Mark 1 eyeball isn't going to hack
it.

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The most interesting part of this is the cost of the UAV. Many times
> that of a C182 with crew. I don't understand why they don't just get a
> couple 182 crews with similar equipment installed.
>
> -Robert
>

[Flyingmonk]

I say why not tethered balloons or blimps with asme equipment on board
and dorder patrols with choppers to have closer looksy when conditions
warrant? Too cost effective to work? Not enough lobbyist to make
money off of this idea?

The Monk

[Flyingmonk]

I say why not tethered balloons or blimps with same equipment on board
at intervals and dorder patrols with choppers to have closer looksy
when conditions warrant? Too cost effective to work? Not enough
lobbyist to make money off of this idea?

The Monk

[George Patterson]

John Doe wrote:

> Anyone know why the TFR is ONLY 300nm long and doesn't stretch the entire
> border of Mexico?

Other portions of the border are already well covered by other means.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Flyingmonk]

George Patterson wrote:
>Other portions of the border are already well covered by other means.

Apparently not well enough, by the looks of the crowd hanging around
the 7-11s in Herndon, VA. The town even suggested building a shelter
and community center especially for them here. A place for them to get
started in life here in the US so they say, a safe place for them to be
picked up by employers. I don't know how that's going.

The Monk

[George Patterson]

Flyingmonk wrote:

> A place for them to get
> started in life here in the US so they say, a safe place for them to be
> picked up by employers.

We have one of those in Red Bank. It's called the train station.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Ron Lee]

Dave S > wrote:

>Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
>> I missed that but you are right. That makes it even less of a problem. Again
>> the AOPA ought to say this is fine and in the interest of both national
>> security and flight safety.
>>
>I agree with you guys.. This is not the one to fight over. The only
>think I can think of is "precedence setting" and "slippery slope" with
>regards to AOPA's rationale in fighting this aggressively.
>
>Dave

Dave, I understand that concept but as GIG mentioned, this one is not
worth falling on your sword. It is a measly 2000 vertical feet where
few planes fly anyway (my guess). If I had to fly there I would fly
under, over or through talking to ATC. I am all in favor of using
appropriate technology to protect our borders. This one does not
appear to infringe even marginally upon our ability to fly.

Ron Lee

[Flyingmonk]

Ron Lee wrote:
>This one does not appear to infringe even marginally upon our ability to fly.

Yeah, but it is infringing on my wallet though, and by the looks of it
there are more illegals hanging around than before, and bunch of flop
houses around too!

I'm all for immigration, but it must be legal, regulated and
controlled. The workers must be taxed like the rest of us.


The Monk

[Dave Stadt]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:9WVBf.9751$zh2.7288@trnddc01...
> John Doe wrote:
>
>> Anyone know why the TFR is ONLY 300nm long and doesn't stretch the entire
>> border of Mexico?
>
> Other portions of the border are already well covered by other means.

Yep, only a couple million a year getting through the well covered areas.

> George Patterson
> Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
> your slightly older self.

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

"Robert M. Gary" > writes:

> The most interesting part of this is the cost of the UAV. [..]
> I don't understand why they don't just get a couple 182 crews with
> similar equipment installed.

Perhaps a Hellfire launcher STC for the 182 is not available.

- FChE

[Morgans]

"Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>I say why not tethered balloons or blimps with same equipment on board
> at intervals and dorder patrols with choppers to have closer looksy
> when conditions warrant? Too cost effective to work? Not enough
> lobbyist to make money off of this idea?

The cable would require a TFR that would run from the surface, all the way
up to the balloon. Hard to see a cable at night.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The most interesting part of this is the cost of the UAV. Many times
> that of a C182 with crew. I don't understand why they don't just get a
> couple 182 crews with similar equipment installed.

That was covered a few days back.
--
Jim in NC

[Sylvain]

Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:

> Perhaps a Hellfire launcher STC for the 182 is not available.

they are planning on using hellfires on Mexican emmigrants?

--Sylvain

[Ross Richardson]

They do have tethered balloons along the border, up to 15,000'. I
believe there is one in NM northwest of El Paso. I saw it when flying to
Tucson a few years back. It is marked on the charts.

Flyingmonk wrote:

> I say why not tethered balloons or blimps with same equipment on board
> at intervals and dorder patrols with choppers to have closer looksy
> when conditions warrant? Too cost effective to work? Not enough
> lobbyist to make money off of this idea?
>
> The Monk
>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"John Doe" > wrote in message
news:EtTBf.13656$Dh.4778@dukeread04...
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> Of course the AOPA disagrees and I completely understand the slippery
>> slope but let's face it the little plane should have no problem flying
>> under the TFR and the big planes should have no problem flying over or
>> under it.
>> Since it looks like we are going to have to deal with UAV in the future
>> we are going to have to do something and a altitude block tha is
>> reasonable seems like it might be the best idea.
>>
>
> THIS TFR is "not that bad". How long before LAPD wants a UAV to loiter
> over L.A. ?
>
>

I have no problem giving UAVs a block of sky to fly in. The proposed US/MEX
border TFR is IMHO a pretty damn good compromise.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The most interesting part of this is the cost of the UAV. Many times
> that of a C182 with crew. I don't understand why they don't just get a
> couple 182 crews with similar equipment installed.
>
> -Robert
>


This conversation has been had.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Ron Lee wrote:
>>This one does not appear to infringe even marginally upon our ability to
>>fly.
>
> Yeah, but it is infringing on my wallet though, and by the looks of it
> there are more illegals hanging around than before, and bunch of flop
> houses around too!
>
> I'm all for immigration, but it must be legal, regulated and
> controlled. The workers must be taxed like the rest of us.
>
>
> The Monk
>


Then you should be all for this. Maybe this will cut the flow.

[Big John]

Sylvania

No. Latest is that we annex Mexico and they all then become American
Citizens and that eliminates the border problem :o)

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:55:52 -0800, Sylvain > wrote:

>Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>
>> Perhaps a Hellfire launcher STC for the 182 is not available.
>
>they are planning on using hellfires on Mexican emmigrants?
>
>--Sylvain

[newsgroups.comcast.net]

Or does it push it futher south?

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> No. Latest is that we annex Mexico and they all then become American
> Citizens and that eliminates the border problem :o)

[Flyingmonk]

George wrote:
>Flyingmonk wrote:
>> A place for them to get
>> started in life here in the US so they say, a safe place for them to be
>> picked up by employers.

>We have one of those in Red Bank. It's called the train station.

Well the town is actually proposing to use taxpayers money to finance a
place for illegal aliens. The town's not interested in enforcing the
law. The town knows the people are illegals and they want to use legal
money to fund illegal activity.

That's the debate that's hot right now in Herndon.

The Monk

[nooneimportant]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>>I say why not tethered balloons or blimps with same equipment on board
>> at intervals and dorder patrols with choppers to have closer looksy
>> when conditions warrant? Too cost effective to work? Not enough
>> lobbyist to make money off of this idea?
>
> The cable would require a TFR that would run from the surface, all the way
> up to the balloon. Hard to see a cable at night.
> --
> Jim in NC

The teathered baloons ARE on the border, know of one near big bend area in
TX, and another near Silver City, MN. They don't have TFR's... they have
airspace slightly more restrictive then a TFR... They have plain ole
Restricted Airspace from surface up to fifteen thousand i belive...

I honestly don't see the UAV's doing all that much to help stop immigration,
still gonna take ground troops to intercept the illegals and shipemback.
That said I don't really have a big prob with this particular TFR, the base
is above what most GA traffic will be operating at. It shares a common
border with the ADIZ which involves ATC contact ANYWAY to transit, and with
ATC communicaiton there is the possibility that you can STILL enter and
transit the UAV TFR's. There are very few airports that will be "Under" the
TFR, and even then do you really expect to be reaching 12k feet in 7 miles?

[nooneimportant]

"nooneimportant" > wrote in message
news:OAhCf.46194$V.43804@fed1read04...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>>I say why not tethered balloons or blimps with same equipment on board
>>> at intervals and dorder patrols with choppers to have closer looksy
>>> when conditions warrant? Too cost effective to work? Not enough
>>> lobbyist to make money off of this idea?
>>
>> The cable would require a TFR that would run from the surface, all the
>> way up to the balloon. Hard to see a cable at night.
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>
> The teathered baloons ARE on the border, know of one near big bend area in
> TX, and another near Silver City, MN. They don't have TFR's... they have
> airspace slightly more restrictive then a TFR... They have plain ole
> Restricted Airspace from surface up to fifteen thousand i belive...
>
> I honestly don't see the UAV's doing all that much to help stop
> immigration, still gonna take ground troops to intercept the illegals and
> shipemback. That said I don't really have a big prob with this particular
> TFR, the base is above what most GA traffic will be operating at. It
> shares a common border with the ADIZ which involves ATC contact ANYWAY to
> transit, and with ATC communicaiton there is the possibility that you can
> STILL enter and transit the UAV TFR's. There are very few airports that
> will be "Under" the TFR, and even then do you really expect to be reaching
> 12k feet in 7 miles?

Gotta love transposition errosr. make that Silver City, NM, not MN.....

[Jay Honeck]

>>We have one of those in Red Bank. It's called the train station.
>
> Well the town is actually proposing to use taxpayers money to finance a
> place for illegal aliens. The town's not interested in enforcing the
> law. The town knows the people are illegals and they want to use legal
> money to fund illegal activity.
>
> That's the debate that's hot right now in Herndon.

Wow. And I thought Iowa City was liberal.

That's nuts.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Larry Dighera]

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>> And what of the precedent, flying UAVs incapable of complying with
>> see-and-avoid regulations, sets for future UAV operations in domestic
>> airspace below 18,000'? How would you feel if the DHS decided it
>> needed to employ UAVs for domestic spying throughout the country, and
>> it resulted in a proliferation of TRFs?
>>
>
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 21:05:58 GMT, "Steve Foley"
> wrote in <WKRBf.5391$Jn1.4145@trndny01>::

>Since they're probably spending ten bazillion dollars on each one, why not
>make it eleven bazillion and put in a radar coupled to the autopilot (or
>whatever fancy name they use for it) and give the UAVs see-and-avoid
>capability?
>

Probably because it will take more than RADAR to accomplish the
see-and-avoid task reliably and safely.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:46:54 -0700, "nooneimportant" >
wrote in <OAhCf.46194$V.43804@fed1read04>::


>The teathered baloons ARE on the border, know of one near big bend area in
>TX, and another near Silver City, MN. They don't have TFR's... they have
>airspace slightly more restrictive then a TFR... They have plain ole
>Restricted Airspace from surface up to fifteen thousand i belive...

Would that be because the balloons are permanent not temporary?

>I honestly don't see the UAV's doing all that much to help stop immigration,
>still gonna take ground troops to intercept the illegals and shipemback.

Apparently Bush is funding that too. (I posted a link supporting that
in a previous message thread on this same subject.)

After considering the mission of border surveillance a little more, I
came to the conclusion, that the use of sophisticated sensors aboard
the UAVs could probably detect the presence of nuclear materials. I
suppose C-182s could be equipped with the same sensors, but the UAVs
are designed to carry them, and probably other useful things. So if
the US can afford the cost, we'll probably be seeing UAVs deployed
around the entire boundary of our nation. I don't particularly
embrace the resulting potential loss of privacy (nor the airspace
restrictions), but given the popular foreign anti-US sentiment, and
proliferation of thugs equipped with weapons worldwide, an _effective_
border patrol system may be a prudent investment.

>That said I don't really have a big prob with this particular TFR, the base
>is above what most GA traffic will be operating at. It shares a common
>border with the ADIZ which involves ATC contact ANYWAY to transit, and with
>ATC communicaiton there is the possibility that you can STILL enter and
>transit the UAV TFR's. There are very few airports that will be "Under" the
>TFR, and even then do you really expect to be reaching 12k feet in 7 miles?

That sounds like a fair analysis. It just fails to address the
precedent this sets for additional future domestic UAV operations.
There is something eerily Orwellian about autonomous machines watching
from above. Welcome to the 21st century.

[Casey Wilson]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> After considering the mission of border surveillance a little more, I
> came to the conclusion, that the use of sophisticated sensors aboard
> the UAVs could probably detect the presence of nuclear materials.

Could you please point to some reference that led you to that
conclusion?

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:31:36 GMT, "Casey Wilson" <N2310D @ gmail.com>
wrote in <IdyDf.10762$Ix.243@trnddc07>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>> After considering the mission of border surveillance a little more, I
>> came to the conclusion, that the use of sophisticated sensors aboard
>> the UAVs could probably detect the presence of nuclear materials.
>
> Could you please point to some reference that led you to that
>conclusion?
>

As I recall, it was a reference to UAVs on a Science or Military
Channel program discussing military robots present and future. I
don't know if such sensors were stipulated in the RFP issued for
border patrol, but it seems like a good idea to included them.

[Morgans]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote

> That sounds like a fair analysis. It just fails to address the
> precedent this sets for additional future domestic UAV operations.
> There is something eerily Orwellian about autonomous machines watching
> from above. Welcome to the 21st century.

Uncle Sam will set whatever "precedents," for whatever it wants to do, with
little concern for what you or I want, especially when it can be said to
"make sense."

Wait for something that doesn't make sense, to make the outcry. It will
still likely do no good, but it will have a better chance of succeeding,
than this one will.
--
Jim in NC

[Flyingmonk]

We now have Mexican soldiers crossing our south border. Even have
video of two of them.

http://www.kfoxtv.com/bordersecurity/6666879/detail.html

The Monk

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:31:36 GMT, "Casey Wilson" <N2310D @ gmail.com>
wrote in <IdyDf.10762$Ix.243@trnddc07>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>> After considering the mission of border surveillance a little more, I
>> came to the conclusion, that the use of sophisticated sensors aboard
>> the UAVs could probably detect the presence of nuclear materials.
>
> Could you please point to some reference that led you to that
>conclusion?
>
>

This is the sort of technology of which I am thinking:


http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/mg19025566.100.html

Astronomy detectors could become nuke hunters
20 June 2006
NewScientist.com news service

DETECTORS designed to search for gamma rays produced by quasars
and supernovae could be used to spot illicit nuclear material on
Earth.

The Major Atmospheric Gamma-ray Imaging Cherenkov (MAGIC)
telescope in La Palma, Spain, detects flashes of light produced
when gamma rays hit the upper atmosphere. Now a group led by
Daniel Ferenc at the University of California, Davis, has
developed detectors based on light-sensitive semiconducting
materials. When photons hit the semiconductors, they emit
electrons, which can be measured.

The detectors work in the same way when hit by neutrons and gamma
rays given off by plutonium, so the US National Nuclear Security
Administration hopes to use them to scan cargo for nuclear
weapons.

From issue 2556 of New Scientist magazine, 20 June 2006, page 29