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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder
John Doe wrote:
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? To ensure when a VFR guy crashes into the UAV inside the TFR, the guvmint can say "it was the VFR guys fault.. it was restricted airspace". This TFR was inevitable given the circumstances AOPA and others screamed that UAV's cant visually separate themselves from traffic. The guvmint isnt going to man an escort plane to fly along side of it 24/7.. which defeats the purpose. The guvmint simply agreed with AOPA in that you cant guarantee visual separation with UAV's. The only realistic alternative was that you sanitize the airspace so that your UAV is the only player. Unfortunately the AOPA and others disagree with the establishment of the TFR as well. Yanno.. you cant have your cake and eat it too. While this TFR issue was "sudden", you have to admit that its a 2000 ft wedge, above 10000 feet, in a very "small" wedge along an obtuse angled section of the border. I suspect existing GA VFR traffic was light to nonexistent in the area, and impact was minimal to existing actual VFR operations. THe only practical gripe that I could agree with is that this is a "slippery slope" regarding airspace grabs via the TFR/"PFR" process... otherwise, the existing structure, design and location of this particular TFR doesnt create much of a problem (when compared to the ADIZ, MickeyMouse TFR's, 60 mile Presidential no-fly zones, and such. Dave |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder
"George Patterson" wrote Someone claimed that a 182 wouldn't be able to carry all the gear that this thing does. That would argue for the larger aircraft. It seems to me that a couple of factors figure in, on why they choose the UAV over the 182. (or bigger) 1. A computer geek can fly the 182, with nowhere near the training of the 182 pilot. 2. The time on station is hard to beat, with a UAV. 12 hours would be near impossible for a 182 pilot, if not impossible, very uncomfortable. The UAV dood can get his backup to take turns, go pee, eat, whatever. 3. If you were using 182's, it would just be a matter of time, before you lost your first crew. News break: small planes do crash. 4. UAV's can do their mission in nearly all weather. Ice would be about the only thing that would keep them on the ground. They even flew these things in hurricane recon missions. You can't say the same about spam cans. They would be frequently grounded, due to weather. 5. You can have a whole crew of specialists, monitoring a large number of instruments. You could only take the pilot, and one or two, in the 182. Go large enough to accommodate a large crew, and watch operating costs go up, with the larger plane. I am not in favor of sharing airspace, without a better workaround than what is being proposed, but I do see why UAV's are attractive to the gubermint. -- Jim in NC |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder
oh, I see, so the Great Wall of China or the Ligne Maginot -- both
built with the best technology available at the time, both to keep some folks *out*, both just as successful -- would be better examples then? Poor examples. Both were designed to stop a military assault. What is happening on the southern border of the U.S. is far more insidious than that. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder
Wendy wrote:
So why don't we just put the UAVs on the boarder above 18,000 ft? Because he can't make the rent with all those UAV's on him all the time. Give the guy a little privacy. Jack |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder
And it's also clear you can't give the Cessna the UAV's capabilities.
Which is it, the Cessna or the UAV's capabilities? (I always love it when I've got 'em sputterin'.) It was clear to me. The poster is claiming that you cannot give the capabilities that the UAV has... to the Cessna. This may or may not be true or relevant, depending on how you define the capabilities. But what the OP said was quite clear. Jose -- Money: what you need when you run out of brains. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder
So why don't we just put the UAVs on the boarder above 18,000 ft?
It's "border". AAAAaaaaaagh! A border is a boundary. A boarder is one who rents a flat. Jose -- Money: what you need when you run out of brains. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder
In article ,
Jose wrote: So why don't we just put the UAVs on the boarder above 18,000 ft? It's "border". AAAAaaaaaagh! A border is a boundary. A boarder is one who rents a flat. don't loose it. ;-) -- Bob Noel New NHL? what a joke |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 03:01:29 GMT, Dave S
wrote in . net:: THe only practical gripe that I could agree with is that this is a "slippery slope" regarding airspace grabs via the TFR/"PFR" process... otherwise, the existing structure, design and location of this particular TFR doesnt create much of a problem (when compared to the ADIZ, MickeyMouse TFR's, 60 mile Presidential no-fly zones, and such. So you feel that operating a UAV on this border patrol mission at a cost that exceeds that of operating a C-182 by several orders of magnitude is not worth griping about? Why is a UAV the platform of choice in this mission? It's technology is unnecessary ill suited to the mission; the money is better spent on ground agents and deportation funding. There is no rational justification for using UAVs, in my opinion. It's just a way for the Bush administration to get headlines and pander to General Atomics's business interest without materially affecting the influx of illegals which might dry up the cheap labor pool. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 07:26:09 GMT, Jose
wrote in :: And it's also clear you can't give the Cessna the UAV's capabilities. Which is it, the Cessna or the UAV's capabilities? (I always love it when I've got 'em sputterin'.) It was clear to me. The poster is claiming that you cannot give the capabilities that the UAV has... to the Cessna. I thought it was a poorly constructed sentence, but if it meant what you inferred, I doubt it is true. This may or may not be true or relevant, depending on how you define the capabilities. But what the OP said was quite clear. Regardless, the expensive high-tech equipment installed on the UAV is not necessary to locate people illegally entering the US as is born out by the current successful use of video camera equipped model aircraft. http://tinyurl.com/7hmqb A Sierra Vista, Ariz.-based private group calling itself the American Border Patrol is using a video-equipped R/C model airplane to spot illegal aliens entering the U.S. via the Arizona-Mexico border. The "Border Hawk" is an off-the-shelf model made of balsa wood covered with heat-shrink plastic. The high-wing, tri-gear craft has a six-foot wingspan and is painted all white, except for yellow wingtips and the initials "ABP" in blue on the wing. According to ABP Director Glenn Spencer, the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle has a top speed of 40 mph and is usually flown at an altitude of 200-400 feet agl. External fuel tanks mounted on the three-foot-long fuselage give it a 90 minute endurance. Spencer said he plans to eventually deploy a squadron of UAVs to scout the border. Each would cost around $12,000, up to $21,000 if equipped with night-vision equipment, he said. According to Spencer, the UAVs are the final stage of a project ABP has been developing for three years. It began with ground sensors planted at border crossing points commonly used by illegal aliens. When a sensor alarms, an ABP team launches the UAV to fly over the area of the incursion and spot the people who set off the alarm. ABP then notifies the U.S. Border Patrol of the location and number of illegals. During a demonstration in Palominas, Ariz. on May 15th, the Border Hawk sent live video of the border over the MSNBC cable network to millions of viewers. ABP is now using a portable satellite uplink to broadcast live UAV footage of illegal aliens crossing into the U.S. on its website: www.americanborderpatrol.com. ABP plans to add GPS to future Border Hawk UAVs so that they can provide the Border Patrol with the precise coordinates of anyone they spot. Though vilified by some as a racist vigilante group, ABP has kept its activities, including the UAV flights, legal. According to the ABP website, local Border Patrol agents appreciate the helping hand from ABP's "eye in the sky." Addressing ABP's efforts, Bureau of Customs & Border Protection spokesman Mario Villarreal said, "We appreciate the community's efforts in notifying us of suspicious activities. We encourage them to call the Border Patrol or law enforcement but those efforts should be within the law." Residents and authorities on both sides of the border are well aware of ABP and its video-equipped UAVs. Some complain that the drones invade their privacy and foster poor cross-border relations. "The Mexican population along the border is indignant," said Mexican Foreign Ministry spokesman Miguel Escobar. Spencer's reply to complaints about his group's high-tech policing efforts is that if the government can't or won't protect the U.S. border, ABP will. He contends that the Border Patrol could operate its own UAVs for as little as $15,000-$20,000 apiece. During a May 17th interview, MSNBC news anchor Michael Savage asked Spencer, "If you can come up with this, why can't the government?' "We hope that is a question people will ask their representatives," Spencer replied. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder
Larry -- instead of arguing vague costs and such, can you put numbers on any of this?
You claim that a fleet of Cessnas is cheaper than the UAVs, by an order of magnitude. What are you basing this on? I am curious how you arrived at your conclusion. (I am acutally interested in how much these UAVs really cost -- your "several million dollars" figure sounds quite high to me. Is that just the cost of manufacturing for the UAVs, or does it include millions of dollars in research amortized over a small number of planes?) Larry Dighera writes: Regardless, the expensive high-tech equipment installed on the UAV is not necessary to locate people illegally entering the US as is born out by the current successful use of video camera equipped model aircraft. Why use model aircraft, when we have seen the successful use of cowboys on horses? This argument holds no weight unless you can state: a) what is the goal of the border patrol? How many people do they wish to catch crossing to achieve this goal? (Note: if the answer is 100%, then they should build a wall.) b) how effective are the model airplanes at achieving this goal? Compared to the UAVs? Compared to border agents driving pickup trucks? According to ABP Director Glenn Spencer, the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle has a top speed of 40 mph and is usually flown at an altitude of 200-400 feet agl. External fuel tanks mounted on the three-foot-long fuselage give it a 90 minute endurance. Okay. So if these model planes were autonomous, they could fly up to 30 miles from the launch point, and then fly straight back. Along that path they could view, twice (on the trip out and back), a swath of land roughly 400-800 feet wide. To cover the entire border, you would have to station a launch point every 60 miles along the border. Presumably these planes are not autonomous, and so you need an R/C pilot every 60 miles. (Does there exist a radio technology that can reliably transmit control signals to an R/C plane over 30 miles in the presence of terrain? How is the pilot going to control the plane when it is over the horizon? Is it possible to get a good enough and fast enough video signal back to the pilot for them to do that reliably from 30 miles away? Three foot long planes are pretty twitchy, especially if you have any wind at all.) They are probably pretty light, so you can only fly them on not very windy days. They are probably pretty noisy (based on my R/C experience), so you will only catch the folks who don't hear them coming and hide. Once they find someone, they can't follow them or track their position for more then a few minutes before running out of fuel and having to go home. To be that small and still be able to carry a payload, they are probably constructed using model airplane techniques: out of wood, fiberglass, and monokote. How many cycles of use can they go through before they have to be reconditioned or replaced? I suspect that the answer is significantly less than 500 cycles. Now, let's say you want 24x7 coverage on the border. Every 60 miles you need to set up an R/C landing strip. You need 9 R/C pilots every 60 miles. Assuming the border is 889 miles long (a google search told me this), that means you need 133 pilots, operating at least 15 planes. (2 pilots for each 8 hour shift -- one flying, the other watching the camera. Assume they work a 5 day 40 hour work week.) How much does that cost? My math: 133 pilots, at $60k/year: $7,980,000/year Planes -- assume 12 flights/day, 500 flight plane lifetime, $21,000/plane: (8.75 new planes/year) * (15 aiports along border) * $21k = $2,756,250 So this program costs you just over $10million/year, ignoring the cost of setting it up, buying land and housing for the airports and pilots, administrative costs, or fuel costs. How much did those UAVs cost? How much more (or less) capable are they than the ten-million-dollar per year fleet of R/C planes? (Or, do you think my math or the assumptions behind it are wrong? In what way?) And what do you get in the end? Every portion of the border has a video camera passing over it 24 times a day, at known intervals, with a lot of noise preceeding the camera's arrival, on clear and calm days. Do you think this would be money well spent? Chris -- Chris Colohan Email: PGP: finger Web: www.colohan.com Phone: (412)268-4751 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|