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
  #101  
Old January 15th 06, 07:17 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

At the very least, I've never heard of a C-172 with 12 hours edurance,
nor capable of employing the sensors and equipment callled for in
this instance.


This may be true, but a C-172 would not need 12 hours endurance to
accomplish the same =objective= (although it would, by definition, need
it to accomplish the same =mission=. Subtle but important difference,
which also bears on the equipment. I don't know the details of the
sensors, but some of them may be unnecessary in a C-172.

So surveilling the border to enforce existing border control laws
are a violation of PRIVACY now?


It could be, depending on how it's done.

Cost is only an advantage if the lower priced alternative can
actually meet the requirement.


.... and the "requirement" can be tailored to meet the cost.

Don't confuse motion with action.
Don't confuse action with results.
Don't confuse "results" with what you wanted in the first place.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
  #102  
Old January 15th 06, 07:29 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 Sun, 15 Jan 2006 17:54:49 GMT, (Ron Lee)
wrote in ::

Larry Dighera wrote:

All you really have to do is make a rule that if you're going to fly
in the areas where UAV's are operating, you have to have a working
mode C or S transponder that's been checked in the last year, no
exceptions. My personal, non-business, non proprietary guess is that
will be included when the rules finally get through the system. Once
you have that data, collision avoidance is much simpler.


So you're suggesting that the FAA should reconfigure the NAS to
accommodate domestic UAV operations below 18,000' and pass the cost
and consequences of doing that on to aircraft owners? How about if
the UAV industry _FUNDS_ the changes they desire; wouldn't that be
more equitable?


You need a transponder operating above 10,000' MSL anyway


I don't believe that altitude is where the Bush administration wants
to operate the border patrol UAVs.


and there are already accuracy checks required (Biannually). No additional
costs to me as a pilot.


So you're suggesting, that what's good for you is good for the nation?

Where is the up-side of domestic UAV operations? Why should the
American public be so eager to change an already overburdened NAS to
accommodate domestic UAV operations? How do domestic UAV operations
provide a benefit to the American public? Of is it about increasing
economic prosperity for the UAV industry?


What is burdened about the areas we are talking about? What real
impact does it have to any pilot?

I see UAVs as combat/spy aircraft with NO ACCOUNTABILITY to those over
whom they fly nor those with whom they share airspace. Is a sky full
of UAVs armed with Hellfire missiles and surveillance technology the
future we want for our children? What am I missing?


As with most liberals, you are missing reality. There are peple who
want to kill those precious children you speak of.


You may characterize me as a liberal (whatever that means), but I
prefer to be seen as one who is willing to speak out in defense of the
principles the founding fathers of our noble nation saw fit to include
when they drafted its Constitution. After decades of oppression,
freedom from government intrusion was foremost in their minds. And
because of their foresight, we have largely been spared (with the
notable exception of J. Edger Hoover and Nixon) governmental invasion
of privacy to the point where we almost beg for it. It's a sad day
indeed when the President of the United States illegally spies on the
people of this nation (among other transgressions), and we are so
unaware of the danger, that we emulate the blithe indifference of a
chicken being gently stroked by the cook as he slits its throat.

Anf you.


Is that a sentence?

And me.
Our borders need to be defended and if UAVs provide a vital place in
that process then so be it.


I agree, that our borders should be secure from undocumented
immigration. I not aware of any need to DEFEND the nation's borders.
I fail to see how UAVs can be construed as the sole and most cost
effective method of border patrol.

I have yet to see where there is a real
and significant impact to pilots as we see with the DC area ADIZ.


Thankfully, your lack of vision is not shared by all who fly. The
time to act is before the precedent is established, not after the fact
when onerous occurrences are proliferating.
  #103  
Old January 15th 06, 08:39 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

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

Where is the up-side of domestic UAV operations?


do you equate UAV operations with only military use?


In my opinion, the only justification for removing the pilot from the
aircraft is if the mission is too dangerous to risk human life.


so you don't see any mission that would involve a platform airborne
for more than 24 hours?

--
Bob Noel
New NHL? what a joke

  #104  
Old January 15th 06, 08:40 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

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

It is my understanding that the RFP was written is such a way that
sensible and cost effective solutions would not meet the request.


you came to this conclusion without even seeing the RFP?

--
Bob Noel
New NHL? what a joke

  #105  
Old January 15th 06, 08:51 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 Sun, 15 Jan 2006 14:39:29 -0500, Bob Noel
wrote in
::

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

Where is the up-side of domestic UAV operations?

do you equate UAV operations with only military use?


In my opinion, the only justification for removing the pilot from the
aircraft is if the mission is too dangerous to risk human life.


so you don't see any mission that would involve a platform airborne
for more than 24 hours?


I see no reason for 12-hour endurance for border patrol.

With the limited number of federal agents patrolling the nation's
southern border, who would use all the data gathered by these UAVs
anyway. The money would be better spent on personnel; they're out
numbered.

  #106  
Old January 15th 06, 09:42 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 Sun, 15 Jan 2006 17:51:48 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 10:06:41 -0700, mike Williamson
williamsonONETHIRTY@earthlinkdotnet wrote in
::

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 17:58:22 GMT, Jack wrote in
::


The Cessna can't match the capabilities of the
UAV, nor is there a reasonable chance that it can be modified to do so.


The vast capabilities of a UAV (including Hellfire missiles) are
unnecessary for the domestic border patrol mission.


And is Hellfire part of the RFP, or are you just trying to make it
sound foolish?

nor capable of employing the sensors and equipment callled for in
this instance.


In your opinion, what equipment capability IS "called for" in this
instance?


Comms relay for agents on the ground, IR and TV sensors. Capability to
realtime the data to units in the field (i.e. send the picture to a
ground unit so they can see exactly where the border runners are
hiding. Night operational capability.

So surveilling the border to enforce existing border control laws
are a violation of PRIVACY now?


Employing UAVs, when conventional aircraft would suffice, betrays the
Bush administration's agenda for further domestic spying.


Border patrol is domestic spying?

Domestic
UAV operation sets a dangerous precedent. Surely, you are not naive
enough to believe, that if the Bush administration is successful in
deploying UAVs domestically, border patrol will be their sole mission.
Domestically deploying UAVs will open the skies for hoards of unmanned
aircraft operated by people located SAFELY ON THE GROUND. These UAVs
will likely be operated by military personnel. The military has time
and again demonstrated its complete lack of accountability in
military/civil mishaps.*

You aren't going to like it if people die at the hands of UAV
operators. What incentive do the ground-based personnel operating
UAVs have to act as prudent and responsibly as a pilot actually aboard
his aircraft? Where are the UAV operators' accountability? How can
the estates of those who fall victim to domestic UAV operations know
who is responsible for the deaths caused by unmanned aircraft?


What has any of this to do with domestic spying? Whether military
pilots (on the ground or otherwise) are responsible is a rather
different issue then whether Bush's Eveel sekrit agents are watching
you.

Cost is only an advantage if the lower priced alternative can
actually meet the requirement. If not, then it isn't a viable
alternative and the cost isn't a factor at all.


Of course.

What do you guess/know the requirements you mention to be?

Because video camera equipped model aircraft have successfully
demonstrated, that high-tech solutions are unnecessary in border
patrol missions, I find UAVs inappropriate for this mission. They are
much too costly and dangerous to be deployed domestically.
*
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...e=source&hl=en


A model aircraft may indeed work for very localised situations (i.e. a
mile or so of border) in excellent visibility. It's not going to work
along the whole border, nor at night.

And adding an accident report from a manned in flight collision to an
argument about how unsafe UAVs are is pure sophistry.


--
Peter Kemp

"Life is short...drink faster"
  #107  
Old January 15th 06, 09:53 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

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

Where is the up-side of domestic UAV operations?

do you equate UAV operations with only military use?

In my opinion, the only justification for removing the pilot from the
aircraft is if the mission is too dangerous to risk human life.


so you don't see any mission that would involve a platform airborne
for more than 24 hours?


I see no reason for 12-hour endurance for border patrol.


You need to think a little out-of-the-box. Consider a platform
operating at an optimum altitude (say for sensor coverage and
comm range) that takes a considerable of time climbing to that
altitude. It could be useful to minimum the number of climbs
through lower altitudes in order to not interfere with small aircraft
operations.

--
Bob Noel
New NHL? what a joke

  #108  
Old January 15th 06, 10:32 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



Dave Stadt wrote:



I doubt it. Are the UAV's going to swoop down and gather up the illegals?
By the time a UAV spots something and Border Patrol gets there the illegals
are long gone.


You can't be this dumb. The UAV will spot the activity miles before
they get to the border.
  #109  
Old January 15th 06, 11:21 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 in message
ink.net...

I doubt it. Are the UAV's going to swoop down and gather up the
illegals?
By the time a UAV spots something and Border Patrol gets there the
illegals are long gone. Or are you saying the UAV's can discern between
normal everyday illegals and terrorist? If so I would like to hear more.


How you figure? illegals crossing the border are going to outrun a UAV
circling overhead? This I gotta see.


So the UAV sees them, now what? The Border Patrol stationed 25 miles away
dashes out and catches them. I doubt it. Isn't it true the Border Patrol
or whomever doesn't have the resources to detain and return illegals and in
fact leaves most of them go inside this country (US of A)? Soooooo what are
the UAVs going to accomplish other than taking pictures of millions
illegally crossing the border. At best it is a multi-million dollar AN3
bolt in a 12 inch hole.


  #110  
Old January 15th 06, 11:29 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


"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
...


Comms relay for agents on the ground, IR and TV sensors. Capability to
realtime the data to units in the field (i.e. send the picture to a
ground unit so they can see exactly where the border runners are
hiding. Night operational capability.


Is this actually going to take place or is it just wishful thinking on your
part? If enough ground personnel are not available, which they are not, it
makes no sense.



 




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 06:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.