UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder

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.


I agree, BUT, show we ONE company that has put in a contract bid to do this
mission?

Anyone out there willing to do this job (covering the same loiter times as
the UAV) needs to come forward and put in a bid for it.

We can bitch all we want but if no one out there wants to do it, what is the
government supposed to do?

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 03:01:29 GMT, Dave S

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.

Larry -- do we know what the mission really is? I think we're all
assuming it's border patrol for drugs and/or illegal immigrants. If
you take a look at the MOA/R/A areas down there, the TFR closes a small
gap between the Fuzzy MOA and the Restricted areas around
sierra Vista. This now creates a complete "wall" along the entire
AZ and NM border. I think the TFR was the quickest and simplest
approach to the border, whereas creating a new MOA or R area
would require public comment and lots of time.

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 ).

"Bob Fry" wrote in message
news
"JD" == John Doe writes:
JD Why can't the UAV just fly along under an IFR flight plan and
JD everyone else just avoid the little thing just like any other
JD plane on an IFR flight plan?

Because that's not the way it works in VMC. In VMC, *everybody*
avoids everybody else visually, as well as with other aids (ATC). So
if the "little thing" is flying, and I'm flying, and it's VMC and I'm
not talking to ATC, and I don't see that "little thing", and of course
nobody is onboard the UAV to see me....midairs happen.

So how does it work with the Global Hawk UAV which was granted a national
certificate of authorization by the FAA in 2003 to fly on an IFR flight plan
in unrestricted airspace in the US?

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 18:56:08 GMT, "Wendy" wrote in
. net::

So how does it work with the Global Hawk UAV which was granted a national
certificate of authorization by the FAA in 2003 to fly on an IFR flight plan
in unrestricted airspace in the US?

I presume you are referring to this/:
http://www.apfn.net/Messageboard/8-1...on.cgi.33.html

San Diego - Aug 18, 2003
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has granted a national
Certificate of Authorization (COA) to the U.S. Air Force to
routinely fly the Northrop Grumman-produced RQ-4 Global Hawk
aerial reconnaissance system in national airspace. The certificate
is the first national COA granted for an unmanned air vehicle
(UAV) system.

The high altitude, long endurance Global Hawk currently flies in
restricted airspace during take-off and landing before quickly
ascending to altitudes high above commercial air traffic. ...

Above 18,000' MSL _all_ aircraft are separated by ATC. As you'll
note, the UAV climbs and descends in Restricted airspace. We wouldn't
want to endanger civil Part 91 flights operating below Positive
Control Airspace with a blind UAV.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 18:56:08 GMT, "Wendy" wrote in
. net::

So how does it work with the Global Hawk UAV which was granted a national
certificate of authorization by the FAA in 2003 to fly on an IFR flight
plan
in unrestricted airspace in the US?

I presume you are referring to this/:
http://www.apfn.net/Messageboard/8-1...on.cgi.33.html

San Diego - Aug 18, 2003
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has granted a national
Certificate of Authorization (COA) to the U.S. Air Force to
routinely fly the Northrop Grumman-produced RQ-4 Global Hawk
aerial reconnaissance system in national airspace. The certificate
is the first national COA granted for an unmanned air vehicle
(UAV) system.

The high altitude, long endurance Global Hawk currently flies in
restricted airspace during take-off and landing before quickly
ascending to altitudes high above commercial air traffic. ...

Above 18,000' MSL _all_ aircraft are separated by ATC. As you'll
note, the UAV climbs and descends in Restricted airspace. We wouldn't
want to endanger civil Part 91 flights operating below Positive
Control Airspace with a blind UAV.


So why don't we just put the UAVs on the boarder above 18,000 ft?

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 21:35:23 GMT, "Wendy" wrote in
. net::


So why don't we just put the UAVs on the boarder above 18,000 ft?


You'll have to ask the Department Of Homeland Security that question.

"Wendy" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 18:56:08 GMT, "Wendy" wrote in
. net::

So how does it work with the Global Hawk UAV which was granted a national
certificate of authorization by the FAA in 2003 to fly on an IFR flight
plan
in unrestricted airspace in the US?

I presume you are referring to this/:
http://www.apfn.net/Messageboard/8-1...on.cgi.33.html

San Diego - Aug 18, 2003
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has granted a national
Certificate of Authorization (COA) to the U.S. Air Force to
routinely fly the Northrop Grumman-produced RQ-4 Global Hawk
aerial reconnaissance system in national airspace. The certificate
is the first national COA granted for an unmanned air vehicle
(UAV) system.

The high altitude, long endurance Global Hawk currently flies in
restricted airspace during take-off and landing before quickly
ascending to altitudes high above commercial air traffic. ...

Above 18,000' MSL _all_ aircraft are separated by ATC. As you'll
note, the UAV climbs and descends in Restricted airspace. We wouldn't
want to endanger civil Part 91 flights operating below Positive
Control Airspace with a blind UAV.


So why don't we just put the UAVs on the boarder above 18,000 ft?


Because then they couldn't get press for imposing a window dressing TFR.

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

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.