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