Mexico Border TFR No that bad

Dave S wrote:

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

Dave, I understand that concept but as GIG mentioned, this one is not
worth falling on your sword. It is a measly 2000 vertical feet where
few planes fly anyway (my guess). If I had to fly there I would fly
under, over or through talking to ATC. I am all in favor of using
appropriate technology to protect our borders. This one does not
appear to infringe even marginally upon our ability to fly.

Ron Lee

Ron Lee wrote:
This one does not appear to infringe even marginally upon our ability to fly.

Yeah, but it is infringing on my wallet though, and by the looks of it
there are more illegals hanging around than before, and bunch of flop
houses around too!

I'm all for immigration, but it must be legal, regulated and
controlled. The workers must be taxed like the rest of us.


The Monk

"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....

John Doe wrote:

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

Imagine what the presence of a UAV chasing after some car would do to the
television ratings of live car chases.


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....

Perhaps they are equipped with the ability to see and detect at a much
larger range than they need to fly?

--
Peter

"John Doe" wrote in message
news:EtTBf.13656$Dh.4778@dukeread04...

"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. ?

What could a UAV add that all the news helos don't already provide?

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....

Looking at the enclosed area using Golden Eagle Flight Prep, the far western
end of the TFR butts up against the Goldwater Bombing Range (an inhospitable
area to be sure, but only slightly more so than the entire Agua Prieta area
as a whole...) and at the east end, you are beginning to get near the El
Paso, Texas area.

Jay B

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 18:03:52 -0500, "John Doe"
wrote in EtTBf.13656$Dh.4778@dukeread04::


Anyone know why the TFR is ONLY 300nm long and doesn't stretch the entire
border of Mexico?

As I recall from the RFP, two UAVs were required. Initially the TFR
was about 120 miles, IIRC. I presume, with the TFR now 300 miles
long, the second UAV is on-line.

We're pretty much telling the Mexicans exactly how to
avoid the very UAV that's trying to detect them....

How would they do that? I am confident the UAV will detect human
targets unless they are covered with reflective mylar blankets
perhaps. That leaves the daylight hours which are probably adequately
patrolled from observation satellites overhead?

Or are you referring to the particular stretch of border that is
defined in the TFR? Perhaps the BP has the remainder of the border
adequately patrolled? More than likely, the section of border
selected was a result of the proximity of the existing military
facilities.

Once DHS has had an opportunity to judge the effectiveness of these
first two, I would expect them to be armed with missiles and deployed
along the entire CONUS perimeter and DC and ....

I say why not tethered balloons or blimps with asme equipment on board
and dorder patrols with choppers to have closer looksy when conditions
warrant? Too cost effective to work? Not enough lobbyist to make
money off of this idea?

The Monk

I say why not tethered balloons or blimps with same equipment on board
at intervals and dorder patrols with choppers to have closer looksy
when conditions warrant? Too cost effective to work? Not enough
lobbyist to make money off of this idea?

The Monk

They do have tethered balloons along the border, up to 15,000'. I
believe there is one in NM northwest of El Paso. I saw it when flying to
Tucson a few years back. It is marked on the charts.

Flyingmonk wrote:

I say why not tethered balloons or blimps with same equipment on board
at intervals and dorder patrols with choppers to have closer looksy
when conditions warrant? Too cost effective to work? Not enough
lobbyist to make money off of this idea?

The Monk

"Flyingmonk" wrote in message
ups.com...
I say why not tethered balloons or blimps with same equipment on board
at intervals and dorder patrols with choppers to have closer looksy
when conditions warrant? Too cost effective to work? Not enough
lobbyist to make money off of this idea?

The cable would require a TFR that would run from the surface, all the way
up to the balloon. Hard to see a cable at night.
--
Jim in NC