If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 13:07:53 -0800, Richard Riley
wrote: On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 20:42:33 +0000, Peter Kemp wrote: :Comms relay for agents on the ground, IR and TV sensors. Capability to :realtime the data to units in the field (i.e. send the picture to a :ground unit so they can see exactly where the border runners are :hiding. Night operational capability. The SAR is useful becase it has a larger field of view. If a TV or IR sensor is zoomed in far enough to see a person on the ground, it's field of view is tiny - you'll miss the group that's walking 100 yards away from him. It's kind of like looking through a soda straw. That's why SAR was in the spec. Didn't realise SAR was in the spec. Bugger all good for seeing humans though. FIne for the coyotes pickups on the other side of the border, but you're not picking up individual people with a SAR as the definition is only just good enough if you're REALLY good at interpreting the photos, and not enough speed to make MTI possible. The laser illuminator is important, so you can point at runners and agents on the ground can see it with their NVG's. Hadn't considered that - good point. -- Peter Kemp "Life is short...drink faster" |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder
"Peter Kemp" wrote in message ... On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 00:29:07 GMT, "John Doe" wrote: I just read an article that said the Tuscon sector of the border patrol now has a Predator-B UAV. The B model is the new and improved (and much more expensive) UAV. I don't think even the military has taken delivery of one of these yet. Total politics. This is so overkill for border patrol it makes me sick. Talk about fraud, waste and abuse of taxpayer money. Got a cite for the Tuscon Predator B? Because AFAIK there are *none* outside the development program ,with the exception for the NASA ALTAIR on which the B is based. -- Peter Kemp The National Museum of the United States Air Force has a preproduction model of the Predator A on display. Just in case anyone wants to see the actual article. Tex |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder
I chaparoned my daughters' schools field trip two weeks ago to DC's
National Air Museum and I think I saw one hanginf from the ceiling there. The Monk |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder
Sounds like they need a Cessna-206!
Here's a question for you: Why can't two pilots in an appropriately equipped C-182 accomplish this mission (without a TFR)? With approximately 1000lb of usable weight (1600lb empty, 2550lb max takeoff), a C-182 is not fitting two men (call it 400lb), comms gear, and all the surveillance gear (stabilised day and night obsevation devices), while still leaving enough margins for fuel to make it worth taking off. Best regards, Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocations!" -- Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jeratfrii.com http://users.frii.com/jer/ C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot BM218 HAM N0FZD 235 Young Eagles! |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder
Martin Hotze wrote:
still: you/we can't hide behind a fence forever and just go on building an even higher fence. You can only try to minimize the social problems on both sides (esp on the other side) of the fence. Yeah, that's worked real well for France. An Austrian would know these things, how? Jack |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:12:46 GMT, "John Doe"
wrote in . net:: Personally I think a NOTAM saying when/where the UAVs will be should be enough for VFR pilots to avoid the thing. Why do we need a TFR? Federal regulations require the pilots of _ALL_ aircraft to see-and-avoid. UAVs are currently unable to comply with that regulation. The UAV creates a hazard to flight safety, but takes no responsibility for that hazard. It's bad enough with the way the FAA has implemented MTRs in the NAS. We don't want that precedent to be further established. ------------------------------------------------------------- AOPA ePilot Volume 8, Issue 13 March 31, 2006 ------------------------------------------------------------- AOPA ALERTS CONGRESS ABOUT UAV THREAT TO GA OPERATIONS Government and private industry want to expand the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in domestic airspace. And although the FAA has been considering the issue for more than 15 years, the agency has yet to find a way to protect civilian aircraft from UAV midairs, except to restrict airspace or require manned chase planes. That's an unacceptable situation, AOPA said Wednesday before the House aviation subcommittee of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. "We request the subcommittee to press the FAA for expeditious action on UAV regulations," AOPA Executive Vice President of Government Affairs Andy Cebula told the subcommittee. "Neither an accident between UAVs and manned aircraft, nor the implementation of flight restrictions, is acceptable." Pilots have told AOPA that they are concerned about UAVs' inability to detect and avoid other aircraft, and their inability to respond immediately to air traffic control instructions. See AOPA Online ( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...060329uav.html ). |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|