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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder
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. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder
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 |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder
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 ). |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder
"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 |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder
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. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder
"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? |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder
"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 |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder
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. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|