Mexico Border TFR No that bad

"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.

"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.

"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.

Sylvania

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

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

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 )

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

"Morgans" wrote in message
news

"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" wrote in message
news:OAhCf.46194$V.43804@fed1read04...

"Morgans" wrote in message
news

"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.....

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" 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.