Mexico Border TFR No that bad

Of course the AOPA disagrees and I completely understand the slippery slope
but let's face it the little plane should have no problem flying under the
TFR and the big planes should have no problem flying over or under it.
Since it looks like we are going to have to deal with UAV in the future we
are going to have to do something and a altitude block tha is reasonable
seems like it might be the best idea.


FAA establishes 300 nm-long TFR on southern U.S. border

The FAA has established a "temporary" flight restriction (TFR) along the
U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona and New Mexico. The TFR is in effect from
12,000 to 14,000 feet and is active from 5 p.m. until 7 a.m. daily. What
makes it so ominous is its size and duration.

The 300 nm-long corridor, 17-nm wide in most places, is to prevent U.S.
Customs and Border Patrol unmanned surveillance aircraft (UAVs) from
colliding with other civilian aircraft.

You are probably correct for those of us that cross frequently. You can
only legally cross Northbound during business hours because you have to
meet the boarder guys at the U.S. airport. Night flying in Mexico is
also illegal for single engine planes.

However, there are some people who lives along the boarder who may find
it more bothersome in their daily domestic flying.

-Robert

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote:

Of course the AOPA disagrees and I completely understand the slippery slope
but let's face it the little plane should have no problem flying under the
TFR and the big planes should have no problem flying over or under it.
Since it looks like we are going to have to deal with UAV in the future we
are going to have to do something and a altitude block tha is reasonable
seems like it might be the best idea.

I don't fly in that area but I don't see the problem. Even I can fly
over it. Did I read a NOTAM properly that states you can enter it
with a squawk code and talking to ATC?

Ron Lee

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
ups.com...
You are probably correct for those of us that cross frequently. You can
only legally cross Northbound during business hours because you have to
meet the boarder guys at the U.S. airport. Night flying in Mexico is
also illegal for single engine planes.

However, there are some people who lives along the boarder who may find
it more bothersome in their daily domestic flying.

-Robert


It will somewhat bothersome but I just don't think it is something that the
AOPA should spend its political capital on. This will not effect 99.99999%
of the pilots in the country and those that it does are only going to have
to delay there climb to altitude by a matter of minutes.

If AOPA hangs it out in a fight over this they're going to have zero allies
and some people who are normally allies of less government regulation are
going to be against them because they want tight borders.

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote:

Of course the AOPA disagrees and I completely understand the slippery
slope
but let's face it the little plane should have no problem flying under the
TFR and the big planes should have no problem flying over or under it.
Since it looks like we are going to have to deal with UAV in the future we
are going to have to do something and a altitude block tha is reasonable
seems like it might be the best idea.

I don't fly in that area but I don't see the problem. Even I can fly
over it. Did I read a NOTAM properly that states you can enter it
with a squawk code and talking to ATC?

Ron Lee

I missed that but you are right. That makes it even less of a problem. Again
the AOPA ought to say this is fine and in the interest of both national
security and flight safety.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 14:07:35 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in
::

It will somewhat bothersome but I just don't think it is something that the
AOPA should spend its political capital on. This will not effect 99.99999%
of the pilots in the country and those that it does are only going to have
to delay there climb to altitude by a matter of minutes.

And what of the precedent, flying UAVs incapable of complying with
see-and-avoid regulations, sets for future UAV operations in domestic
airspace below 18,000'? How would you feel if the DHS decided it
needed to employ UAVs for domestic spying throughout the country, and
it resulted in a proliferation of TRFs?

Since they're probably spending ten bazillion dollars on each one, why not
make it eleven bazillion and put in a radar coupled to the autopilot (or
whatever fancy name they use for it) and give the UAVs see-and-avoid
capability?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
And what of the precedent, flying UAVs incapable of complying with
see-and-avoid regulations, sets for future UAV operations in domestic
airspace below 18,000'? How would you feel if the DHS decided it
needed to employ UAVs for domestic spying throughout the country, and
it resulted in a proliferation of TRFs?

Sure. Our society will accept no risk. All a radar guided UAV has to do
is come within a gazillion miles of an airliner and the Congress
critters will be in full cry demanding investigations and heads to roll.

"Steve Foley" wrote in message
news:WKRBf.5391$Jn1.4145@trndny01...
Since they're probably spending ten bazillion dollars on each one, why
not
make it eleven bazillion and put in a radar coupled to the autopilot
(or
whatever fancy name they use for it) and give the UAVs see-and-avoid
capability?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
And what of the precedent, flying UAVs incapable of complying with
see-and-avoid regulations, sets for future UAV operations in domestic
airspace below 18,000'? How would you feel if the DHS decided it
needed to employ UAVs for domestic spying throughout the country, and
it resulted in a proliferation of TRFs?

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:



I missed that but you are right. That makes it even less of a problem. Again
the AOPA ought to say this is fine and in the interest of both national
security and flight safety.



I agree with you guys.. This is not the one to fight over. The only
think I can think of is "precedence setting" and "slippery slope" with
regards to AOPA's rationale in fighting this aggressively.

Dave

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...
Of course the AOPA disagrees and I completely understand the slippery
slope but let's face it the little plane should have no problem flying
under the TFR and the big planes should have no problem flying over or
under it.
Since it looks like we are going to have to deal with UAV in the future we
are going to have to do something and a altitude block tha is reasonable
seems like it might be the best idea.


THIS TFR is "not that bad". How long before LAPD wants a UAV to loiter over
L.A. ?



FAA establishes 300 nm-long TFR on southern U.S. border


Anyone know why the TFR is ONLY 300nm long and doesn't stretch the entire
border of Mexico? We're pretty much telling the Mexicans exactly how to
avoid the very UAV that's trying to detect them....