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
  #21  
Old January 13th 06, 07:45 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 08:52:21 -0800, Richard Riley
wrote in
::

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:46:12 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

:On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 12:38:33 GMT, "John Doe"
:wrote in . net::
:
:Why does baby Bush deploy UAVs for the mission of securing the
:nation's southern border? Because UAVs cost millions of dollars, and
:require a crew of 7 on the ground to operate them, not to mention the
:airspace grab through TFRs, the money spent on this non-hostile
:mission would be much better spent on live bodies in Cessna C-182s
:equipped with IR sensors.

The RFP for the southern border project specified UAV's with 12 hour
endurance, synthetic aperture radar and a laser illuminator as well as
a FLIR system, light amplification cameras, comm relay for ground
agents, a mode S transponder and a pile of other stuff.


Is the equipment specification in that Request For Proposal a result
of necessity to accomplish the mission of securing the nation's
boarders, or was the specification established to conform to
pre-existing UAV equipment? (are you able to provide a URL for the
RFP?) After all, the civilian militia currently patrolling the
southern boarder, that sprang up out of necessity to protect private
property, successfully uses model aircraft equipped with video
cameras. The difference in cost is many orders of magnitude less than
a UAV and a ground crew.

You have a 182 and a crew that can do that?


You could deploy four C-182s with 2-man crews with capabilities
similar to the UAV specification, and save millions of dollars, and
avoid impacting the safety of the National Airspace System with
Temporary Flight Restrictions. The Bush administration's choice to
employ UAVs is clearly not driven by minimizing cost nor capabilities.

And - btw - the optical systems can't be in the propeller slipstream,
the turbulance degrades their resolution too much. That's why so many
of the UAV's are pushers.


So mount the FLIR head out on the wing out of the prop-wash.

So you're looking at a twin, minimum 2 people on board and a PILE of
gear - and 12 hour endurance.


Let me remind you, the mission is currently being successfully
accomplished with model aircraft fitted with video cameras. The use
of UAVs is not justified for this border patrol mission.

:UAVs are useful for missions on which the
otential for loss of crew is a factor, and about four times more
:costly to operate than conventional manned surveillance aircraft. If
:the Bush administration's goal were truly boarder security, they could
:field four times as many manned observation/surveillance aircraft.

It's a lot easier to look at the video and data from a base station on
the ground with a hot coffee in hand than in the airplane after you've
been flying for 10 hours straight.


I'll accept your lack of contention as agreement, that UAVs only make
sense for missions that have potential for catastrophe for manned
aircraft.

:There was some fuss about the FAA creating TFRs for the UAVs that are flying
:with boarder patrol along the Mexico.


As well there should have been. The FAA has the responsibility of
safely operating the NAS. Given the rash of poorly thought out
Executive branch mandated TFRs that have been created since the
September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, it's a wonder that the NAS
continues to function at all.

:And well there should be. The current UAVs lack the ability to comply
:with FARs requiring aircraft to maintain _visual_ separation in VMC.

Look up "HALE ROA"


From this statement on the Access 5 web-site:

http://www.access5.aero/access5_custom/what.html
What is Access 5 ?

Access 5 is a national project sponsored by NASA and Industry with
participation by the FAA and DoD to introduce high altitude long
endurance (HALE) remotely operated aircraft (ROA) for routine
flights in the National Airspace System (NAS). Access 5 commenced
in May 2004 and is slated to run for five years. The project has
received initial funding from NASA and guarantees of support from
the ROA industry. (ROA will be used interchangably [sic] with
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) throughout this website.)

The goal of Access 5 is to enable what government and industry
leaders believe will ultimately be a robust civil and commercial
market for HALE ROA. The current lack of ready access to the NAS
inhibits investment in ROA commercialization and the ability of
users to obtain cost-effective ROA services. Access 5 seeks to
remove the barriers to aviation's most compelling new offering in
decades.

It is patently obvious that Access 5's goal is all about big business
exploiting and compromising the safety of the NAS in which the public
relies for travel.

:Why can't the UAV just fly along under an IFR flight plan and everyone
:else just avoid the little thing just like any other plane on an IFR flight plan?

They will. The problem is the VFR guy with no electrical system and
no transponder, barreling through and not seeing the UAV.


If the "VFR guy" fails to see-and-avoid the UAV, he is subject to FAA
administrative action probably resulting in suspension of his pilot
certificate if he survives the MAC. On the other hand, if the UAV
crew's failure to see-and-avoid causes a MAC, the "VFR guy" probably
dies.

Please cite the federal regulations that specify what action will be
taken against the UAV crew in the event of their causing a MAC.

:The borders are unsecured, because the Bush administration doesn't
:want to secure them. The UAVs are being deployed to establish a
recedent for remote domestic surveillance, in my opinion, not to
:secure the nation's borders. Given the cost involved, what other
:reason for UAV deployment makes sense?

You want to see a precident for domestic surveillance? See
http://news.pajamasmedia.com/science...ng_Satel.shtml

WICHITA, Kan., Jan. 13, 2006 (AP Online delivered by Newstex) --
Satellites have monitored crop conditions around the world for
decades, helping traders predict futures prices in commodities
markets and governments anticipate crop shortages.

But those satellite images are now increasingly turning up in
courtrooms across the nation as the Agriculture Department's Risk
Management Agency cracks down on farmers involved in crop
insurance fraud.

The Agriculture Department's Farm Service Agency, which helps
farmers get loans and payments from a number of its programs, also
uses satellite imaging to monitor compliance.

Across government and private industry alike, satellite imaging
technology is being used in water rights litigation and in
prosecution of environmental cases ranging from a hog confinement
facility's violations of waste discharge regulations to injury
damage lawsuits stemming from herbicide applications. The
technology is also used to monitor the forestry and mining
industries.

"A lot of farmers would be shocked at the detail you can tell.
What it does is keep honest folks honest," said G.A. "Art" Barnaby
Jr., an agricultural economist at Kansas State University.

Satellite technology, which takes images at roughly eight-day
intervals, can be used to monitor when farmers plant their
acreage, how they irrigate them and what crops they grow. If
anomalies are found in a farm's insurance claim, investigators can
search satellite photos dating back years to determine cropping
practices on individual fields.

...

While fewer than 100 cases have been prosecuted using satellite
imaging since the RMA started its crackdown in 2001, data mining _
coupled with satellite imaging _ pinpoints about 1,500 farms
annually that are put on a watch list for possible crop fraud,
Hand said. Ground inspections are done on the suspect farms
throughout the growing season.

The agency says its spot checklist generated by the satellite data
has saved taxpayers between $71 million and $110 million a year in
fraudulent crop insurance claims since 2001.

The agency stepped up its enforcement after the Agriculture Risk
Protection Act of 2000 mandated it use data mining to ferret out
false claims, Hand said. Every year, it ships claims data to the
Center for Agriculture Excellence at Tarleton State University in
Stephensville, Texas, where analysts look for anomalies in claims.
They generate a list of claims for further investigation, with
satellite imaging pulled on the most egregious cases.

Just as U.S. satellites kept track of things like the wheat
harvest in the former Soviet Union, other countries have also
launched satellites to monitor American crops. Germany, France and
others have satellites monitoring crop conditions, and many other
private firms sell those images in the U.S.

"Everybody spies on everybody. I was stunned to hear that myself,"
Edwards said. "Someday, I may have to rely on a French satellite
to convict an American citizen."


Just because the federal government spies on its citizens, doesn't
make it right:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...121600021.html
Bush Authorized Domestic Spying
Post-9/11 Order Bypassed Special Court

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 16, 2005; Page A01

President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 authorizing the
National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and foreign
nationals in the United States, despite previous legal
prohibitions against such domestic spying, sources with knowledge
of the program said last night.

The super-secretive NSA, which has generally been barred from
domestic spying except in narrow circumstances involving foreign
nationals, has monitored the e-mail, telephone calls and other
communications of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of people under
the program, the New York Times disclosed last night.

...

Congressional sources familiar with limited aspects of the program
would not discuss any classified details but made it clear there
were serious questions about the legality of the NSA actions. The
sources, who demanded anonymity, said there were conditions under
which it would be possible to gather and retain information on
Americans if the surveillance were part of an investigation into
foreign intelligence.

But those cases are supposed to be minimized. The sources said the
actual work of the NSA is so closely held that it is difficult to
determine whether it is acting within the law.

The revelations come amid a fierce congressional debate over
reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act, an anti-terrorism law
passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The Patriot Act granted
the FBI new powers to conduct secret searches and surveillance in
the United States.

Most of the powers covered under that law are overseen by a secret
court that meets at Justice Department headquarters and must
approve applications for wiretaps, searches and other operations.
The NSA's operation is outside that court's purview, and according
to the Times report, the Justice Department may have sought to
limit how much that court was made aware of NSA activities.

Public disclosure of the NSA program also comes at a time of
mounting concerns about civil liberties over the domestic
intelligence operations of the U.S. military, which have also
expanded dramatically after the Sept. 11 attacks.

For more than four years, the NSA tasked other military
intelligence agencies to assist its broad-based surveillance
effort directed at people inside the country suspected of having
terrorist connections, even before Bush signed the 2002 order that
authorized the NSA program, according to an informed U.S.
official.

The effort, which began within days after the attacks, has
consisted partly of monitoring domestic telephone conversations,
e-mail and even fax communications of individuals identified by
the NSA as having some connection to al Qaeda events or figures,
or to potential terrorism-related activities in the United States,
the official said.

It has also involved teams of Defense Intelligence Agency
personnel stationed in major U.S. cities conducting the type of
surveillance typically performed by the FBI: monitoring the
movements and activities -- through high-tech equipment -- of
individuals and vehicles, the official said.

The involvement of military personnel in such tasks was provoked
by grave anxiety among senior intelligence officials after the
2001 suicide attacks that additional terrorist cells were present
within U.S. borders and could only be discovered with the
military's help, said the official, who had direct knowledge of
the events.

Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies,
said the secret order may amount to the president authorizing
criminal activity.

The law governing clandestine surveillance in the United States,
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, prohibits conducting
electronic surveillance not authorized by statute. A government
agent can try to avoid prosecution if he can show he was "engaged
in the course of his official duties and the electronic
surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search
warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction,"
according to the law.

"This is as shocking a revelation as we have ever seen from the
Bush administration," said Martin, who has been sharply critical
of the administration's surveillance and detention policies. "It
is, I believe, the first time a president has authorized
government agencies to violate a specific criminal prohibition and
eavesdrop on Americans."

Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative
office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said she is
"dismayed" by the report.

"It's clear that the administration has been very willing to
sacrifice civil liberties in its effort to exercise its authority
on terrorism, to the extent that it authorizes criminal activity,"
Fredrickson said.
...
  #22  
Old January 13th 06, 07:54 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 18:24:56 GMT, "John Doe"
wrote in . net::


Guess it's time to change the FARs to welcome UAVs to US airspace....(like
it or not, they're here)


Perhaps it's time to publicly voice your opposition to UAVs in
domestic airspace before it's too late.

http://www.house.gov/writerep/
http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm
  #23  
Old January 13th 06, 07:54 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

("Jose" wrote)
It's also partly the UAV's fault. Everything is required to see and
avaoid in VMC.



That's pretty much what the 'illegals' on the ground are trying to do also -
see and avoid.


Montblack

  #24  
Old January 13th 06, 07:56 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 18:31:22 GMT, "John Doe"
wrote in . net::


I'm not really that opposed to ops along the boarder. My concern is when
UAVs spread to other areas around the country, metro areas, police actions,
etc and now we start having TFRs or worse all over the place.


Right. This is the camel's nose under the tent.

http://camelphotos.com/tales_nose.html
  #25  
Old January 13th 06, 08:04 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

("John Doe" wrote)
Politics to show that the administration is doing something to address the
problem. I call it Bandaid Politics.



Two years into his second term and ten years after everyone knew there was a
problem ...it's not time for a bandaid, it's time for a tourniquet!


Montblack

  #26  
Old January 13th 06, 08:44 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

John Doe wrote:

If you're flying in VMC and you don't see that "little thing", and have a
midair, it's your fault. Why does it matter if anyone is on board the UAV
or not?


Who cares whose fault it is? You're much more likely to be blindsided by one of
these things than by an aircraft piloted by someone who isn't suicidal.

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?


Put out a NOTAM, and the people smugglers will be able to find out what areas
aren't being patrolled at the moment.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.
  #27  
Old January 13th 06, 08:46 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

John Doe wrote:

ATC provides IFR seperation to aircraft all over the world.


ATC does not provide separation between IFR aircraft and VFR aircraft.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.
  #28  
Old January 13th 06, 09:58 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

You want to see a precident for domestic surveillance? See
http://news.pajamasmedia.com/science...ng_Satel.shtml


That, is an interesting article!
  #29  
Old January 13th 06, 10:39 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


"George Patterson" wrote \

Put out a NOTAM, and the people smugglers will be able to find out what
areas aren't being patrolled at the moment.


How about a NOTAM that says the areas involved, and the altitude the thing
will be flying at, and leave the notam in place. Then, all you have to do
is avoid, say 2000 feet and you will not hit/be hit by it.
--
Jim in NC

  #30  
Old January 13th 06, 10:45 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


"john smith" wrote in message
...
You want to see a precident for domestic surveillance? See
http://news.pajamasmedia.com/science...ng_Satel.shtml


That, is an interesting article!


AP slacking off. NPR had that story in November or December on Morning
Edition. I think it was a multi-part piece.


 




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 06:53 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.