UAVs along the US-Mexico border? How about your own back yard?

Larry Dighera wrote:
On 26 Jul 2006 16:42:50 -0700, "cjcampbell"
wrote in
.com::

What the heck do you need privacy for, ...

Isn't it a Constitutionally guaranteed right?

You mean, like the right to bear arms, the right to worship as you
wish, the right to keep your own property: those rights?

I guess that is the problem, isn't it? Once you start to trample on
some rights, you have to accept that others will use the same excuses
to trample on the rest.

On 26 Jul 2006 20:47:47 -0700, "cjcampbell"
wrote in
.com::

Once you start to trample on some rights, you have to accept
that others will use the same excuses to trample on the rest.

I see that trend hasn't escaped your keen eye, even at a distance half
way around the world. :-)

But that's not what has me worried. It's sharing the skies with
another aircraft that is very small which frustrates my ability to
comply with the see-and-avoid regulation, and the UAV's inability to
comply also. This trend toward small UAVs could eventually grow to
the point where they become a serious threat to aerial navigation, and
who is your estate going to sue? How easy is it going to be to locate
the errant operator of the UAV? There is no readily available proof
of who specifically was operating it. Providing blind UAVs exemption
to the see-and-avoid regulation is a prescription for disaster IMO.

Once they get a foothold, it will be very difficult to exclude them
from navigable airspace.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On 26 Jul 2006 20:47:47 -0700, "cjcampbell"
wrote in
.com::

Once you start to trample on some rights, you have to accept
that others will use the same excuses to trample on the rest.

I see that trend hasn't escaped your keen eye, even at a distance half
way around the world. :-)

But that's not what has me worried. It's sharing the skies with
another aircraft that is very small which frustrates my ability to
comply with the see-and-avoid regulation, and the UAV's inability to
comply also. This trend toward small UAVs could eventually grow to
the point where they become a serious threat to aerial navigation, and
who is your estate going to sue? How easy is it going to be to locate
the errant operator of the UAV? There is no readily available proof
of who specifically was operating it. Providing blind UAVs exemption
to the see-and-avoid regulation is a prescription for disaster IMO.

Once they get a foothold, it will be very difficult to exclude them
from navigable airspace.

A much more relevant point than any concerns about 'rights' in this day
and age.

However, the serial number and ownership of a UAV should be
identifiable in the wreckage. :-(

Then, too, if you are flying low enough to run afoul of a Peeping-Tom
UAV maybe you have other problems than just see-and-avoid.

I wonder if I can get a stronger prop suitable for crushing UAVs?

"cjcampbell" wrote

I wonder if I can get a stronger prop suitable for crushing UAVs?

I suspect that this new line of eye in the sky UAV's, weighing only about 3
pounds, would be so brittle, they would do little more than leave a very
small dent in your wing, or scrape the paint on your prop.

The only danger is if one were to hit you squarely in the windshield, and
hit you in the eye!
--
Jim in NC

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 08:10:38 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote in ::

The only danger is if one were to hit you squarely in the windshield, and
hit you in the eye!

Really? You'll have to reveal the source of your prescience.

Personally, I seriously doubt that that is the only danger that a 3
pound UAV poses to aerial navigation. What if a UAV punched a hole in
your wing and covered your aircraft with fuel? What if a UAV hit a
control surface or somehow or other managed to jam your controls?

On 28 Jul 2006 02:58:26 -0700, "cjcampbell"
wrote in
. com::

Then, too, if you are flying low enough to run afoul of a Peeping-Tom
UAV maybe you have other problems than just see-and-avoid.

Perhaps. But this UAV is certified to operate at 2,100' in Canada.