A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #141  
Old January 16th 06, 10:43 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.piloting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 16th 06, 10:58 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.piloting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 16th 06, 11:14 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.piloting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 16th 06, 11:53 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.piloting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 17th 06, 02:44 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old March 31st 06, 06:58 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.piloting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.