UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:24:56 GMT, "John Doe"
wrote in . net::


Guess it's time to change the FARs to welcome UAVs to US airspace....(like
it or not, they're here)

Perhaps it's time to publicly voice your opposition to UAVs in
domestic airspace before it's too late.

http://www.house.gov/writerep/
http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm

("John Doe" wrote)
Politics to show that the administration is doing something to address the
problem. I call it Bandaid Politics.


Two years into his second term and ten years after everyone knew there was a
problem ...it's not time for a bandaid, it's time for a tourniquet!


Montblack

Larry Dighera wrote:

Why...deploy UAVs for the mission of securing the
nation's southern border? Because UAVs cost millions of dollars, and
require a crew of 7 on the ground to operate them....

How many people are required to keep a 182 operating on the same mission?



Jack

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 10:52:42 GMT, Jack wrote in
::

Larry Dighera wrote:

Why...deploy UAVs for the mission of securing the
nation's southern border? Because UAVs cost millions of dollars, and
require a crew of 7 on the ground to operate them....

How many people are required to keep a 182 operating on the same mission?

That's a good question. Perhaps you'll find time to research it.

It's clear that it doesn't take 7 people to fly a C-172 as it does a
UAV.

Larry Dighera wrote:

It's clear that it doesn't take 7 people to fly a C-172 as it does a
UAV.

And it's also clear you can't give the Cessna the UAV's capabilities.

You appear to have a political axe to grind, since you can't demonstrate
any mission advantage to the Cessna.

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.


Jack

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 17:58:22 GMT, Jack 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.

ask the former border patrols from East-Germany. They have some knowledge.
Also the Chinese might help a little.

#m
--
If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh?
If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?
W. Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act III, scene I

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

Larry Dighera wrote:

It's clear that it doesn't take 7 people to fly a C-172 as it does a
UAV.

And it's also clear you can't give the Cessna the UAV's capabilities.

Which is it, the Cessna or the UAV's capabilities? (I always love it
when I've got 'em sputterin'.)

If you question any of the information I have provided, it is your
responsibility to find data that supports your argument, not mine.

You appear to have a political axe to grind,

Yes. I am not happy with Bush's unconstitutional/illegal repeal of
personal liberty and privacy, upon which this UAV patrolled border
policy seems to further encroach.

since you can't demonstrate any mission advantage to the Cessna.

I find cost to be an advantage. Don't you?

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?

boarder security

helmet, knee pads and elbow pads worn out on the half-pipe

On 16 Jan 2006 17:57:24 GMT, Blanche wrote
in ::

boarder security

helmet, knee pads and elbow pads worn out on the half-pipe


:-)

There is radar contact along the entire U.S. Mexican boarder. I usually
call ATC about 10 miles south of the boarder when enter the U.S. I've
entered from several areas of California and Arizona. Also, along the
California boarder there are airways that are as close as 5 miles from
the boarder that do not enter Mexico.

-Robert