UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder

"Newps" wrote in message
...


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.

Yea sure, keep believing. There are so many holes and problems with
securing the border it wouldn't matter if the UAVs could swoop down and pick
them up. The process is so screwed up most of them would be let go anyway
just as they are now. High-tech isn't going to solve this problem.

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 14:40:17 -0500, Bob Noel
wrote in
::

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?

I reached that conclusion on the basis of a message earlier in this
thread:

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 08:52:21 -0800, Richard Riley
wrote in
::

The RFP for the southern border project specified UAV's with 12 hour
endurance, synthetic aperture radar and a laser illuminator as well as
a FLIR system, light amplification cameras, comm relay for ground
agents, a mode S transponder and a pile of other stuff. You have a
182 and a crew that can do that?

And - btw - the optical systems can't be in the propeller slipstream,
the turbulance degrades their resolution too much. That's why so many
of the UAV's are pushers. So you're looking at a twin, minimum 2
people on board and a PILE of gear - and 12 hour endurance.

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 15:53:43 -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.

You need to think a little out-of-the-box.

I'm usually pretty good at that. :-)

Consider a platform operating at an optimum altitude (say for sensor coverage and
comm range) that takes a considerable [amount] of time climbing to that
altitude.

Given:

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/notams.html#6/0199
6/0199 ZAB PART 1 OF 2 AZ. FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS, SOUTHERN U.S.
BORDER, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS), NOGALES, AZ.
PURSUANT TO TITLE 14 CFR SECTION 99.7, SPECIAL SECURITY
INSTRUCTIONS, AIRCRAFT FLIGHT OPERATIONS PROHIBITED WITHIN AN AREA
BOUNDED BY THE FOLLOWING COORDINATES: 313655N/1110600W TO
313655N/1104502W TO 312000N/1104502W TO 312000N/1110430W TO
312205N/1111100W TO POINT OF BEGINNING FROM 12000 FT MSL TO 14000
FT MSL, INCLUSIVE, EFFECTIVE 2359-1400 UTC DAILY FROM 0601082359
UTC (1659 LOCAL 01/08/06) UNTIL 0612311400 UTC (0700 LOCAL
12/31/06). EXCEPT AS SPECIFIED BELOW AND/OR UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY
ATC: 1. DOD AIRCRAFT OPERATING: A. IN ACCORDANCE WITH A SEPERATION
AGREEMENT WITH D.H.S., AND; B. WITHIN PORTIONS OF AN ACTIVE
MILITARY OPERATING AREA (MOA) THAT ARE WITHIN THE SPECIAL SECURITY
AREA DESCRIPTIVE IN THIS NOTAM. 2. ALL AIRCRAFT ENTERING OR
EXITING THE TFR MUST BE ON A DISCRETE CODE ASSIGNED BY AN AIR
TRAFFIC CONTROL (ATC) FACILITY. AIRCRAFT MUST BE SQUAWKING THE
DISCRETE CODE AT ALL TIMES WHILE IN THE TFR. 3. ALL AIRCRAFT
ENTERING OR EXITING THE TFR MUST REMAIN IN TWO-WAY RADIO
COMMUNICATIONS WITH ATC. 4. ATC MAY PROVIDE FLIGHT ADVISORIES TO
AIRCRAFT IN THE TFR CONCERNING NATIONAL SECURITY OPERATIONS. END
PART 1 OF 2

PART 2 OF 2 AZ. FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS, SOUTHERN U.S.
BORDER,DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS), NOGALES, AZ. 5.
TUSCON APROACH, PHONE 520-670-5087, IS THE FAA COORDINATION
FACILITY. END PART 2 OF 2 [See graphic:
http://www.aopa.org/images/whatsnew/...ms/6-0199.jpg]

AOPA has compiled plain-language guidance and a list of airports
affected by notam 6/0199:

Size and location:
313655N/1110600W TO 313655N/1104502W TO 312000N/1104502W TO
312000N/1110430W TO 312205N/1111100W TO POINT OF BEGINNING:
12,000-14,000 feet MSL inclusive
Effective time:
1659 through 0700 local daily January 8 until December 31, 2006
Requirements for flight in TFR:
Must remain on a discrete transponder code while in the TFR
Must maintain two-way communication with ATC while in the TFR
Impacted airports:
None

In this case, it's an altitude of 12,000-14,000 feet MSL inclusive.

It could be useful to minimum the number of climbs
through lower altitudes in order to not interfere with small aircraft
operations.

Hopefully the UAVs won't be climbing outside of restricted airspace.

Here's a question for you: Why can't two pilots in an appropriately
equipped C-182 accomplish this mission (without a TFR)?

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 13:07:53 -0800, Richard Riley
wrote in
::

The SAR is useful becase it has a larger field of view. If a TV or IR
sensor is zoomed in far enough to see a person on the ground, it's
field of view is tiny - you'll miss the group that's walking 100 yards
away from him. It's kind of like looking through a soda straw.
That's why SAR was in the spec.

Of course, if the altitude is lower, that's a non issue.

You need a dash speed. There's a LOT of border to cover.

In the case of this TFR, it's abut 120 miles.

You need to be able to get 50 miles away in a pretty short period.

Why is that a necessity?

The loiter time is important. The southern border is long, and the
area they're working with this is uninhabited.

In the case of this TFR, it's abut 120 miles.

So you want the vehicle to be able to go there from your base, loiter
all night, and then come home. If you have to refuel at midnight
you're going to loose half your patrol time.

You could use two C-182s, so that there would always be one over the
boarder, with considerably less expense than one UAV, and it would
require no TFR.

The laser illuminator is important, so you can point at runners and
agents on the ground can see it with their NVG's.

Is there something that precludes a C-182 from being quipped with a
laser illuminator?

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 22:29:58 GMT, "Dave Stadt"
wrote in : :

If enough ground personnel are not available, which they are not, it
makes no sense.

Thank you.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 22:29:58 GMT, "Dave Stadt"
wrote in : :

If enough ground personnel are not available, which they are not, it
makes no sense.

Thank you.

I'm with you on this one Larry.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 13:19:34 GMT, "John Doe"
wrote in et::

So you feel that operating a UAV on this border patrol mission at a
cost that exceeds that of operating a C-182 by several orders of
magnitude is not worth griping about? Why is a UAV the platform of
choice in this mission? It's technology is unnecessary and ill suited
to
the mission; the money is better spent on ground agents and
deportation funding. There is no rational justification for using
UAVs, in my opinion. It's just a way for the Bush administration to
get headlines and pander to General Atomics's business interest
without materially affecting the influx of illegals which might dry up
the cheap labor pool.


I agree, BUT, show we ONE company that has put in a contract bid to do
this
mission?

I can't even find the text of the Request For Proposal, let alone a
list of bidders and their proposals. Have you tried to research that?

Anyone out there willing to do this job (covering the same loiter times as
the UAV) needs to come forward and put in a bid for it.

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


Of course it was. That's politics for ya.

We can bitch all we want but if no one out there wants to do it, what is
the
government supposed to do?

What makes you think no one want's to do it?


I didn't say that. (hence the "if")

If the Bush administration were truly interested in stemming the tide
of illegal border crossings, it would request proposals that would
accomplish that task, not set up restrictive proposal criteria for
which the only solution is domestic UAV operations.


I just read an article that said the Tuscon sector of the border patrol now
has a Predator-B UAV. The B model is the new and improved (and much more
expensive) UAV. I don't think even the military has taken delivery of one
of these yet. Total politics. This is so overkill for border patrol it
makes me sick. Talk about fraud, waste and abuse of taxpayer money.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
news

"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.


What do you think the Border Patrol does? Just stroll down the road and if
they happen to see an illegal, they arrest them? They've been dashing out
to locations tripped by sensors for years to catch illegals. The UAV can
track them non-stop for up to 30 hours or until it runs out of gas. Last
time I checked the border patrol had helicopters as well. It wouldn't take
that long to send a patrol out to the UAVs location to see what it's
tracking.

"John Doe" wrote in message
ink.net...

"

I just read an article that said the Tuscon sector of the border patrol
now has a Predator-B UAV. The B model is the new and improved (and much
more expensive) UAV. I don't think even the military has taken delivery
of one of these yet. Total politics. This is so overkill for border
patrol it makes me sick. Talk about fraud, waste and abuse of taxpayer
money.

And it isn't even close to being a solution. Typical government
solution....throw good money after bad at the problem and punish the
innocent.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 10:06:41 -0700, mike Williamson
Employing UAVs, when conventional aircraft would suffice, betrays the
Bush administration's agenda for further 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're smoking crack on this one. Is an LAPD helicopter with the same
camera on board as the UAV now doing domestic spying? Please. Don't be
surprised if in 5-10 years every metro police department has transitioned
from helicopters to UAVs.