UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder

John Doe wrote:
"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.

Ok, you just contradicted yourself.

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?

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?

Answer a question for me: is this a little bitty slow UAV that's hard
to see from any kind of distance or one of the larger, faster ones that
can run a light plane down from behind where the pilot couldn't see it
coming?

John Keeney wrote:

Answer a question for me: is this a little bitty slow UAV that's hard
to see from any kind of distance or one of the larger, faster ones that
can run a light plane down from behind where the pilot couldn't see it
coming?

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.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

"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

George Patterson wrote:
John Keeney wrote:

Answer a question for me: is this a little bitty slow UAV that's hard
to see from any kind of distance or one of the larger, faster ones that
can run a light plane down from behind where the pilot couldn't see it
coming?

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.

Well, one of the more favored UAVs is the size of the 737...

"John Keeney" wrote in message
oups.com...


Answer a question for me: is this a little bitty slow UAV that's hard
to see from any kind of distance or one of the larger, faster ones that
can run a light plane down from behind where the pilot couldn't see it
coming?


We're talking about these or something very close.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/predator/

John Doe wrote:
"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.

Ok, you just contradicted yourself.

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?

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?

Answer a question for me: is this a little bitty slow UAV that's hard
to see from any kind of distance or one of the larger, faster ones that
can run a light plane down from behind where the pilot couldn't see it
coming?

Answer a question for me: is this a little bitty slow UAV that's hard
to see from any kind of distance or one of the larger, faster ones that
can run a light plane down from behind where the pilot couldn't see it
coming?

Not to be flip, but it is a small camel or a large one?

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:12:46 GMT, "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?

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?



I was down that way a couple of weeks ago (closer to Sierra Vista) and
saw a big white airship hovering at around 2000 feet - if this is the
UAV they're talking about, you don't have to worry about it running
into you - or you not seeing it.

jb

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

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.