UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 18:46:07 GMT, "Wendy" wrote in
et::



What if we made the boarder [sic] area a MOA instead of a TFR?

Then VFR traffic would be subject to conflicting UAV traffic that is
incapable of complying with FAA see-and-avoid regulations.

Seems to me the risk of a mid-air is much higher flying through an active
MOA (which is currently allowed) with a manned fighter jet moving at
tactical speeds than it is with a slow moving UAV (even though it's

Be that as it may, the manned fighter jet's pilot is capable of
complying with FAA see-and-avoid regulations.

However, military pilots just disregard federal regulations
occasionally:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...e=source&hl=en

Here's some background on the subject of UAV operations in the NAS:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...de=print&hl=en

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:

Here's a political football for you: the whole damn border ought to be a
TFR and a triple concertina wired no-man's land, with well-armed guards
shooting on sight anything that moves.

Why?

Why, to increase inflation, of course.

But a small ancillary benefit might be to also decrease terrorist
access, for those who think that's important.


Jack

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 02:18:31 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote in ::

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:48:51 -0800, Richard Riley
wrote in
::

That's what the whole Access 5 program is about - being able to fly
UAV's in the airspace *without* impacting other traffic.

However, that is not what is occurring with regard to the UAV Mexico
border patrol. In fact, to my knowledge, the UAV manufacturers have
not yet demonstrated a synthetic vision system adequate to permit UAVs
to comply with FAA see-and-avoid regulations.

To move forward deploying UAVs in domestic airspace is, as a result of
that failure, is irresponsible at best, if not negligent. And the
federal government's complicity in bilking the American people of
millions of dollars in UAV funding is a travesty and reveals the
current lack of fiscal responsibility.

The money is better spent putting more agents in the field and
implementing effective deportation policies; that's where the problems
are.

Apparently, I'm not the only one with concerns about the new UAV TFRs:

-------------------------------------------------------------
AOPA ePilot Volume 8, Issue 2 January 13, 2006
-------------------------------------------------------------

AOPA QUESTIONS FAA'S UAV TFR ON MEXICAN BORDER
The FAA last Friday suddenly, and somewhat unexpectedly,
established a temporary flight restriction (TFR) area near
Nogales, Arizona, along the Mexican border for unmanned aerial
vehicle (UAV) flights. "There has been an ongoing discussion
regarding TFRs for U.S. Customs UAV border patrol operations. But
the unexpected, immediate implementation of this TFR raises
concerns that federal officials have not taken into
consideration the impact that this kind of TFR has on general
aviation," said Melissa Rudinger, AOPA vice president of
regulatory affairs. "The association staff is meeting this week
with the FAA, Homeland Security, and other security officials to
take up the issue." This isn't the first time AOPA has raised
concerns about UAV operations in airspace shared with general
aviation. AOPA has insisted consistently that unmanned aerial
vehicles be able to detect and avoid other aircraft at least as
well as "see-and-avoid" tactics for manned aircraft. Currently,
UAVs can't do that. And that's why UAVs need TFRs to cover their
operations. But then that raises the possibility of widespread
TFRs usurping civilian airspace. AOPA will fight that. See AOPA
Online
( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...060109uav.html ).

"Larry Dighera" wrote

What of the NORDO wooden glider with the right of way over powered
aircraft?

It is my understanding that synthetic aperture radar can see every kind of
object, including trees, ground, buildings, ect. That should work OK for
wood or fiberglass planes, also.
--
Jim in NC

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 20:32:27 GMT, Jack wrote in
::

Larry Dighera wrote:

Here's a political football for you: the whole damn border ought to be a
TFR and a triple concertina wired no-man's land, with well-armed guards
shooting on sight anything that moves.

Why?

Why, to increase inflation, of course.

You mean to imply that the increased federal spending necessary to
implement what you suggest will be so massive as to affect the rate of
inflation? Or are you implying that the higher cost of wages as a
result of drying up the illegal immigrant labor pool will result in
higher prices? Or ...

But a small ancillary benefit might be to also decrease terrorist
access, for those who think that's important.

Despite the fact, that the Bush administration finds no difficulty in
using national security as an excuse for war, torture, trampling
citizens' Constitutional liberties and illegal domestic spying, it's
apparent that Bush finds even higher priority in keeping the cost of
labor down, than in actually securing the nation's borders.

"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?

"John Doe" wrote in message
ink.net...
How much of the American boarder with Mexico is out of radar contact?

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

When there is so much talk about securing the boarders, I can't imagine
that there is any strip of the boarder that we can not monitor by radar.


Found this interesting. It's the Department of Defense's UAV (now called
"UA"s or "UAS"s) Roadmap for 2005-2030.

Appendix F talks about integrating UAVs into the "national airspace system"

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/colle...oadmap2005.pdf

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 16:06:02 -0500, "Morgans"
wrote in ::


"Larry Dighera" wrote

What of the NORDO wooden glider with the right of way over powered
aircraft?

It is my understanding that synthetic aperture radar can see every kind of
object, including trees, ground, buildings, ect. That should work OK for
wood or fiberglass planes, also.

Here's the definitive Synthetic Aperture Radar web-site:
http://www.sandia.gov/radar/sar.html

And here is the Synthetic Aperture Radar Applications web-page:
http://www.sandia.gov/radar/sarapps.html

However, I don't see any mention of SAR being capable of seeing wooden
aircraft in flight, but SAR is able to image an oil slick on the
ocean, perhaps you've got something there.

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.