Latest News Against UAV's [Archive]

wattnoise

Dec 24, 2005, 12:38 PM

Although this is targeted against government operations, I thought it was pertinent in the fact that it was the first time that I'd seen that a monetary value was used against UAV operations in two ways...

First, there is a ludicrous comparison between the operational costs of a HERMES UAV and a guy in a Cessna 182 (with a pair of binoculurs and a Kodak, I assume) - apples and oranges because of capabilities... Second, there is an overall reference to impacting the income of general aviation operators who could be doing the operations instead...

From e-mail newsletter:

AOPA PUSHES FOR GA PROTECTIONS IN UAV DEBATE
Is using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to patrol the U.S. border with
Mexico a good idea? Recent congressional testimony suggests that it might
not be a panacea. AOPA has been advocating a "seamless integration" of
UAVs, fearing that they may not mix well with existing general aviation
aircraft already using the airspace. And AOPA has been raising those
concerns with members of Congress, including Rep. Bennie Thompson,
(D-Miss.), the ranking Democratic member of the Homeland Security Committee.
During a hearing last week, Thompson learned from the Department of
Homeland Security inspector general that one UAV requires a crew of up
to 20 support personnel, and the operating cost is more than double that
of a manned aircraft. "In all of our interactions with federal officials,
including AOPA's representation on the RTCA UAV special committee, we
have insisted that unmanned aerial vehicles must not have a negative
impact on general aviation operations," said Andy Cebula, AOPA senior
vice president of government and technical affairs. "They should be
certified to the same level of safety as piloted aircraft, and should
reliably sense and avoid other aircraft." See AOPA Online
( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/051221uav.html ).

The AOPA release:

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/051221uav.html

A link on the HERMES:

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/uav/hermes_450/Hermes_450.html

Watt Noise?
Kevin

CenTexFlyer

Dec 24, 2005, 10:05 PM

Now THAT is one excellent piece of "spin doctoring" wouldn't you say?

DavidB.

Dec 24, 2005, 10:42 PM

20 people!!!??? Doesn't it at most take one person to fly and one person to watch for Aliens/terrorists? If you gave me $15,000 I could setup a system that flew itself (except landing) and then just one operator would be needed. I see 2 things going on here. Either it's being spun into something it's not (likely), or the miliatry UAV's are much more complicated than they should be. I always get amuzed when they say "this" or "that" UAV costs $500,000. I can make something fly with a camera for less than $1000. To add a long range transmitter and a IR camera would make the price go up...but nowhere even close to $500,000....

So while this is probably spin, I have no doubt that the costs are much higher than they should be. I think this is why Darpa is trying to get Universities in on the action (Grand Challenge). So that they can reduce costs and cover up their own inefficiencies.

patrickegan

Dec 24, 2005, 10:53 PM

I wonder how many support personal are needed for a full size craft?

wattnoise

Dec 24, 2005, 11:16 PM

It is definitely the most blatant spin I've ever seen out of AOPA - very disappointed with them...

kd7ost

Dec 25, 2005, 12:36 AM

Hmmm, this is curious!

Dan

Myron

Dec 25, 2005, 04:52 PM

I think the Hermes is a bit on the overkill side of what is needed.. It is more catered to Hazard duty to limit the time military pilots are getting shot at.. not to mention I am sure it cost more than a 152/172.. I think that some members of the AOPA are worried that their gravy-train gigs may be on the way out... You also got tot consider that alot of the guys wanting to sell to the military are way over complicating things just to get bigger contracts.. Seems that a fleet of inexpensive(sub 10K) Rapid Deployment units would work just fine and keep the overall cost and liabilities down..

Myron

Vindication

Dec 25, 2005, 06:45 PM

Not that I can say much about this particular article. But if they are using full-scale size UAV's I can certainly see the cost being more than a Cessna.

Also lets not kid anybody UAV technology is still developing and so it is complex and/or costly right now. But the future is a different story!

-Vind

CenTexFlyer

Dec 25, 2005, 09:07 PM

AOPA spin doctoring? Ha!

Myron and I have been at trade shows and have been told point blank that we are "stealing jobs" from full size pilots. And not in the most pleasant terms! Our UAS/RPVs are significantly simpler (in the short range) than even a 152 to operate. Forget the future... right now! One more component and we are virtually "launch and forget".

DavidB.

Dec 25, 2005, 10:45 PM

Fieldruts

Dec 26, 2005, 12:27 PM

Sadly the spin is here to stay

I enjoy, or used to enjoy the friendship of two light aircraft owners/pilots.
They do tourist and some very basic AP/AV.

It took me a few months to work out how best to let them know I was entering the field of AP/AV using model aircraft.

The " lost jobs / safety issues / we (themselves) cannot compete" arguments started.

I spoke to one who was doing some work for a county who is down south west, just to see how he felt... the security issues. Lost that friend as well.

If anyone thinks that the pilots of this world, (they are not all against us), are going to let the AP/AV or Security usage by one or two man teams flying R/C for ANY reason that will effect the pilots wage packet, then you are kidding yourselves.

I quote from the above
""In all of our interactions with federal officials,
including AOPA's representation on the RTCA UAV special committee, we
have insisted that unmanned aerial vehicles must not have a negative
impact on general aviation operations," said Andy Cebula, AOPA senior
vice president of government and technical affairs."

Read that as we will regulate you (the ppl of this forum) into the ground so we can keep our high paid personal flight jobs for ANY reason.

What I enjoy is the humor of all the debate and upcoming regulation on R/C style AP/AV platforms when you just got to say "go look at the regulations for an ultralight", no license, no problems, no issues, and above all... as far as I have yet seen, no drama about a "Homeland Security Threat" potential weapon. Remember, they, the bad guys, dont mind blowing themselves up, or the drug smugglers dont mind shooting it out... so who are we being pressured form really... the commercial pilots and the fat wallet companies who have got really comfortable flying planes for the Government doing "security patrols"

IMHO, which is always long winded, and I dont mind the flames, ask those who want to regulate us to open thier books and show who is lobbying for the crushing of AP/AV by RC Platforms.

Ken

Vindication

Dec 26, 2005, 01:11 PM

Although there may be plenty of lobbying involved, the above statement about not interfereing is about UAV's not physically endangering General Aviation (aka mid-air collisions etc).

In my opinion UAV's have a ways to go (especially mini-UAV's and the like) before they have "see and avoid" type of capabilities! I mean I work on around $5k UAV's and they certainly have no ability to avoid obstacles. And they probably won't for a while. That is NOT a trivial problem!

-Vind

patrickegan

Dec 26, 2005, 01:19 PM

Last that I heard there is a system the can see but still has trouble avoiding in the $25K range. I think it entirely plausible that they (FAA) could carve up some airspace and implement procedures and regulations so we could all coexist. Would everyone be happy when it's all said and done is another story-

treehog

Dec 27, 2005, 10:40 AM

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=435724

Once there is any hint of commersial and pow the problems start

I havent checked Europe laws but suspect its a non starter comersail or hobbyist in most european countries

I will stick to simmulators for the moment as the crash costs are cheaper :D

Ralf

Tuner

Dec 29, 2005, 01:45 PM

I see a simple solution. Machine Vision based Collision avoidance. You could do this with 2 cameras using 180deg. fishey lenses and Machine Vision API. Thier is software out their that after calibration can allow a camera to gernerate a 3D map of the image. Combine this with some simple software already used in video games and Viola Simple Lightweight collision avoidance.

Yah I know its not that simple but in reality the complexities of this design have already been tackled in general robotics just get it to work in lightweight lowpower packge will be the tough part.
Problem with See and Avoid is that a system like this would almost cost more than all the other components combined. With most of the money going into software.

Not to mention all these Autos with radar on a chip Im sure somone can make a lightweight radar system.

Allow it to land/take-off and See/Avoid autonomously and Viola no one can say anything.

Fieldruts

Dec 29, 2005, 09:54 PM

Question, do all FFA certified aircraft come with a transponder??

If a transponder is in a plane/heli and that can be "read" by the UAV, then...

Can you not make a "listening" device that will hear that signal.. and auto disengage the mission at the time and seek to do a reversal away from that particular signal?

One on each wing... small and light, and just do a triangulation of signal to tell the over ride chip which way to turn to avoid the oncoming aircraft.

I dont know, seems like a simple idea to me, but what do I know.

Ken

Thomas B

Dec 29, 2005, 09:56 PM

Yeah, UAV's are definately the future. I have yet to hear one viable reason why UAV's should not be used for all hazardous situations besides troop transport and other "people moving" scenarios, since I doubt many would trust a "machine" to fly them around. From what I've gathered, most pilots today view video monitors when they drop/fire their weapons. How is this different than remotely viewing the same image? UAV's are here to stay. They save lives, are less $$$ to operate, and the pilot can go home to bed while another takes over :D

there are actually a number of reasons, one of which is this:

the lack of a perfectly reliable unjamable wide band high speed data link that works all the time, every time, on the other side of the worl. That is why they are not doing everything yet, or all that much beside recce.

It may come over time, but it is not quite time, yet. Some pundits think that the data link issue might prevent the universal use of combat UAVs.

Thomas B

Dec 29, 2005, 09:58 PM

Fieldruts

Dec 29, 2005, 10:34 PM

Zaviation

Jan 02, 2006, 09:18 PM

The FAA is currently struggling with the proposed policy for UAV operations in the NAS. I am convinced that their main goal in developing this guidance is safety as that is their primary mission. I doubt very much if the economic impact set forth by AOPA and others is going to influence that guidance. The FAA is not in the business of guaranteeing someone's income.

Until I presented a briefing to the FAA on 19 May 2005 concerning Small UAV commercial operations they were not aware the policy they were developing would automativally include Small UAVs (Those under 55 lbs).
They had not considered that the commercial operations would not be allowed by the AMA and that put us right back in their lap. During my briefing to the UAV working group at Hq FAA, they decided that they would have to re-think the UAV policy in light of this new (to them) information.

Had they not started thinking about Small UAVs as a seperate issue we would all fall under the policy of the large UAVs and would be sitting on our transmitters for the next 10 years or so waiting for "Sense and Avoid". It now appears that the initial policy the FAA will issue will cover the commercial operation of Small UAVs in the NAS. This is an entirely new area the FAA is dealing with and they are trying hard to come up to speed on Small UAV requirements and capabilities in order to provide the most beneficial policy for SUAs while still maintaining a safe NAS.

Don't be surprised if, initially, we SUAV commercial operators are restricted to airspace not normally inhabited by manned aircraft. That will probably mean altitude restriction and, even withing that restricted altitude, we operators will be responsible for showing how we are mitigating the risk associated with our operations. Check my website under "Latest News" for more information on an example of this "Risk Mitigation".

John Zaner
www.zaneraviation.com

Thomas B

Jan 02, 2006, 10:16 PM

Hmmmss.. ok.. so would it not be easier to retrofit all aircraft with a transponder.. ,one of limited range, say 3 mile, then with our platforms we can "see" them and avoid... or dodge...

I do see a vast commercial market looming, if legislation for this to happen anyway, post Homeland Security etc. is not in the works.

No I do not sell such a unit, but I would take stock in someone who does.

Then I can get on with dealing with normal things like flying and earning a $

Ken

Why add expense and excessive burden to general aviation aircraft bought and operated perfectly well under current rules, so that someone else could commercially or governmentally operate UAVs more safely?

There are much better ways of dealing with this than tossing it over the wall to the general aviation folks.

Put the expense in the lap of those creating the situation...the UAV operator.

Internal sense and avoid for the larger UAVs, without change to exisitng light aircraft.

See and avoid for smaller ones operated visually.

Pick 2-3 alititudes..low, medium and just under PCA for UAV operations where there are lots of general avaition activity and have the GA pilots avoid those altitudes.

wattnoise

Jan 07, 2006, 02:06 PM

...apparently - maybe anyways... ;)

-------------------------------------------------------------------
AOPA ePilot Special Airspace Bulletin January 7, 2006
-------------------------------------------------------------------

A special notice to AOPA members in the Southern Arizona area

==> ATTENTION PILOTS <==

FAA TO ESTABLISH TFR OVER NOGALES, ARIZONA BEGINNING SUNDAY
AOPA is sending this message to advise pilots in and near Nogales, Arizona,
that the FAA has issued a security-related notam restricting flight in
that area beginning Sunday, January 8, through December 31, 2006.

The TFR boundaries extend from 313655N/1110600W to 313655N/1104502W to
312000N/1104502W to 312000N/1110430W to 312205N/1111100W, beginning
at 12,000 ft. msl. through 14,000 ft. msl. inclusive. It will be
in effect from 4:59 p.m. local until 7 a.m. local daily. See the full
text of the notam ( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/notams.html#az )
along with a graphical depiction
( http://www.aopa.org/images/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/notams/6-0199.jpg ).
Pilots must remain on a discrete transponder code and maintain two-way
communications with ATC while operating within the TFR.

"While there has been ongoing discussion regarding TFRs for U.S. Customs
Border Patrol UAV operations, the unanticipated immediate implementation
of this TFR raises concerns that the FAA and the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) have not taken into consideration the impact that this kind
of TFR has on general aviation. The association staff is meeting with the
FAA, DHS, and other security officials next week to take up the issue,"
said Melissa Rudinger, vice president of regulatory affairs.

Because TFR airspace frequently changes, AOPA strongly encourages
pilots to obtain a briefing and CHECK NOTAMS before every flight.
TFR violators will be intercepted and forced to land.

wattnoise

Jan 14, 2006, 12:42 PM

Don't mean to whip a dead horse... Thought that those that are not AOPA members may like to continue getting the news on this subject... Here's the latest:

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/newsitems/2006/060109uav.html ).

wattnoise

Jan 24, 2006, 11:27 AM

Apparently, the HERMES UAV project is going well... They've expanded the flight restriction area along the border to encompass a good part of New Mexico's border and the majority of the Arizona border... Those that are AOPA members ought to go check out the Forums on AOPA... Quite a bit of "LIVELY" discussions between military UAV pilots from this area and non-UAV pilots... Unfortunately, "guests" are not allowed...

Kevin

-------------------------------------------------------------------
AOPA ePilot Special Airspace Bulletin January 23, 2006
-------------------------------------------------------------------

A special notice to AOPA members in the southern Arizona and
New Mexico areas

==> ATTENTION PILOTS <==

FAA TO ESTABLISH TFR OVER SOUTHERN ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO ON TUESDAY
AOPA is sending this message to advise pilots near the southern portions
of Arizona and New Mexico that the FAA has issued a security-related
notam restricting flight in those areas beginning Tuesday, January 24,
and continuing through December 31, 2006, for U.S. Customs Border
Patrol unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) operations.

The TFR stretches across more than 300 nautical miles of the southern
portions of these states and will be in effect daily from 5 p.m. to 7 a.m.
local, extending from 12,000 feet msl to 14,000 feet msl. The TFR extends
from about 30 nm east of the Columbus VOR/DME in Columbus, New Mexico,
to about 20 nm southwest of Ajo Municipal Airport (P01) in Ajo, Arizona.
It joins the U.S./Mexican border and is 15 nm wide in most places.
Air traffic control may clear aircraft through the airspace; however,
pilots must remain on a discrete transponder code and maintain two-way
communications with ATC while operating within the TFR.

See AOPA Online for the full text of the notam along with the lines of
latitude and longitude that detail the exact boundaries of the TFR
( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/notams.html#6/0798 ).
A graphical depiction is also available online
( http://www.aopa.org/images/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/notams/6-0798.jpg ).

This TFR encompasses the security-related TFR near Nogales, Arizona,
that went into effect January 8.

"Even though the TFR is limited to 12,000 to 14,000 feet and overnight
hours, AOPA believes that the use of "temporary" large-scale flight
restrictions for yearlong UAV operations is not appropriate," said
Melissa Rudinger, AOPA vice president of regulatory affairs. "We
are appealing to the FAA and security officials for less restrictive
alternatives for these types of operations."

Because TFR airspace frequently changes, AOPA strongly encourages
pilots to obtain a briefing and CHECK NOTAMS before every flight.
TFR violators will be intercepted and forced to land.

wattnoise

Jan 28, 2006, 01:28 AM

AOPA seems to be going a different direction and lightening up a little on the UAV's on the Border dispute... I think the quality of info from UAV pilots on their forum sunk in and AOPA figured out that they can't talk trash about UAV's anymore...

For the first time I've ever seen, AOPA actually sent out a poll for an issue as well!... Sorry - the survey link was I.D. coded so I had to delete the URL... There were 3 questions asking whether I agreed with their assertions on the UAV/TFR situation along the Mexican border... I answered no to all...

But, they're not giving up - yet... The latest angle which is much more valid than any thing they've printed before on this matter (IMO):

FAA ESTABLISHES 300-NM 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. But this TFR hardly seems "temporary." It's scheduled to be in
effect until December 31 and will likely be renewed next year. "Even
though the TFR is limited to 12,000 to 14,000 feet and evening and night
hours, AOPA believes that the use of 'temporary' large-scale flight
restrictions for yearlong UAV operations is not appropriate," said
Andy Cebula, AOPA executive vice president of government affairs. "We
are appealing to the FAA and security officials for less restrictive
alternatives for these types of operations." AOPA staff met with FAA
and security officials last Friday to find alternatives to the current
use of large TFRs to protect UAV flights. See AOPA Online
( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060123uav.html ).

---------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~ AOPA Close to Home ~~~
ONLINE SURVEY: HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THE UAV TFR?
To help AOPA better understand your views on the impact of the UAV
TFR in New Mexico and Arizona, please take our online survey
( http://xxxxxxxxxxxx). It only takes a few minutes but will greatly
help us with our advocacy efforts. Thank you for your time.

LukeZ

Jan 28, 2006, 01:41 AM

mwraight

Jan 28, 2006, 02:06 AM

I don't see how a TFR with an altitude block between 12,000' and 14,000' inclusive will hurt general aviation or cause any problems at all. Ever have a Cessna 152 up to 13,000'? I've had one up to 11,000' and that was about all she had to give.

You can either fly under it or over it depending on your capabilities. No huge deal.

A TFR follows the President everywhere he goes...and thats from the ground to Flight Level 600 (60,000') - and that doesn't hurt General Aviation either.

I don't think you're going to find the FAA doing this frequently for UAVs.

Also: Here in Southern Arizona we have an absolute terrible border problem. The illegals coming across (that are caught) number in the hundreds of thousands. The financial drain on the state dealing with the problem is in the millions. So if it takes a TFR to operate for awhile and alleviate that problem so be it. And I promise you most pilots that live in this area would agree with that.

I fly both general aviation and UAVs...so I definitely feel for both sides.

wattnoise

Jan 28, 2006, 04:58 AM

Watt, when you say "their latest angle," do you mean their assertion that a temporary flight restriction isn't the appropriate means to implement an apparently non-temporary policy? It sounds like they want the FAA to go through the process of establishing a restricted or prohibited area. But if they did that, and it passed the "rule-making" process, then I'd think AOPA would be in an even worse spot (according to themselves).
Yes - that's what I meant... The TFR is the most expedient way for the FAA to allow the implementation of the UAV ops along the border, but it does go "against the spirit" of the TFR being put in place for a temporary situation... And - there's not thing one anyone can do about it when a TFR is "decreed"...

I don't see how a TFR with an altitude block between 12,000' and 14,000' inclusive will hurt general aviation or cause any problems at all. Ever have a Cessna 152 up to 13,000'? I've had one up to 11,000' and that was about all she had to give.

You can either fly under it or over it depending on your capabilities. No huge deal.

A TFR follows the President everywhere he goes...and thats from the ground to Flight Level 600 (60,000') - and that doesn't hurt General Aviation either.

I don't think you're going to find the FAA doing this frequently for UAVs.

Also: Here in Southern Arizona we have an absolute terrible border problem. The illegals coming across (that are caught) number in the hundreds of thousands. The financial drain on the state dealing with the problem is in the millions. So if it takes a TFR to operate for awhile and alleviate that problem so be it. And I promise you most pilots that live in this area would agree with that.

I fly both general aviation and UAVs...so I definitely feel for both sides.
I agree and that's why (IMO) AOPA is taking a different angle at this... I think they realize now that GA that comes across the border around here is generally during the daytime and VFR at 10500 or 11500 at the most... Traffic crossing the border at night is usually IFR and capable of altitudes above the TFR... So as you say - big deal...

One thing, the FAA is a bit heavy handed with TFR's and seems to be more so of late... They've implemented a Presidential size TFR of 30 NM around the Super Bowl!... Their standard (Baseball All-Star game) has been 3 NM in the past... Check out http://www.aopa.org homepage... Also, I foresee the use of UAV's very shortly across all sparsely inhabited borders and coastal areas if the UAV ops here prove to be successfull... Without a different procedure available, TFR's will be the way UAV's will deploy in these places as well...

The border problem around here is horrendous, and I for one hope the HERMES is a success...

Kevin

kd7ost

Jan 28, 2006, 01:58 PM

The border problem around here is horrendous, and I for one hope the HERMES is a success...Kevin

I'm glad to hear you say this. Does this indicate a shift in your thinking or did I have you pegged wrong after we had a disagreement about wanting to fly in excess of 400 feet in the RCAPA discussion area? I recall getting a little miffed that you didn't support or couldn't understand why anyone would want to fly higher than that.

Maybe I had a wrong impression after that rats nest of "culling the herd" discussions. I can't help but feel a little leary that you're here making comments that sound pro UAV.

Dan

wattnoise

Jan 28, 2006, 04:27 PM

I am all for doing things in a proper, safe, and lawful way... I am also appreciative of the current "crop" of UAV's capabilities and the benefits that they can offer right now... I am also hopeful that technological advancements in the future will allow a more fluid integration of UAV's into the NAS... I also hope that undue, improper, and/or unlawful activities do not occur to hinder the advances that UAV's are making to integrate them into the NAS... IMO - only in this way will the advances and operations (that are so very well showcased by the conscientious contributors of this forum) be allowed to continue… Last I heard, this is the current FAA policy on all UAV and model aircraft activity http://www.uavforum.com/library/faa_uas_policy.pdf …

As far as RCAPA goes, I felt that my views were representative of the majority of the type of operators associated with that organization… I also felt that my views as expressed at RCAPA were the most expeditious way of having recognition, and at the very least, a tolerance of model aircraft operators making a few bucks taking photos… Whether any of that made a difference - I don't know… All I do know is that per the policy stated above, model aircraft are still considered model aircraft and not mini-UAS if they are flown within the guidelines of FAA AC 91-57…

Kevin

kd7ost

Jan 28, 2006, 06:41 PM

Sounds good to me. I think you’ll find little if any arguments with that type of thinking here. The one or two rogue elements from some time ago appear to have taken their leave.

I understand about the majority interest that exists in the RCAPA group as it is now. Early on I had been invited to join in so as to bring a UAV operators perspective to the table for remote sensing “beyond the back yard” as it were. It just took a while to realize I didn't fit the evolving RCAPA membership’s interest or focus. I bear no grudge to that. There were simply too many unknowns in the beginning and the group dynamic really narrowed its focus to RC only, and kept trying to fit under that AMA umbrella as it formed. That’s a natural process and was an ideology shared by the majority of the membership. In the end, there simply wasn’t room for or interest in UAV's of any breed as photo platforms and that’s OK. The RCAPA site still provides an area where we can post about and discuss UAV’s and we’re left alone there. That’s a great thing and I appreciate that ability. (Thanks Rick)

You're a very active, well known and respected member of the RCAP community. You bring an awareness of the FAA due to your close ties and years of experience with them that few of us can appreciate. It heartens me to see a person of your caliber and knowledge commenting in favor on the small UAV side of things at this point in time.

Dan

wattnoise

Feb 04, 2006, 12:05 AM

Dunno... Sure seems to be fast and furious changes going on for these TFR's to be modified so often... Anyways - here's the latest:

-------------------------------------------------------------------
AOPA ePilot Special Airspace Bulletin February 3, 2006
-------------------------------------------------------------------

A special notice to AOPA members in the southern Arizona area

==> ATTENTION PILOTS <==

FAA TO TEMPORARILY SHRINK TFR OVER SOUTHERN ARIZONA
AOPA is sending this message to advise pilots in and near southern
Arizona that the FAA has issued a security-related notam temporarily
shrinking the temporary flight restriction (TFR) along the U.S.-Mexico
border, beginning Friday, February 3, and continuing through December
31, 2006, for U.S. Customs Border Patrol unmanned aerial vehicle
(UAV) operations.

This TFR stretches across 100 nautical miles of southern Arizona and
replaces the previous 300-nm TFR that extended into New Mexico. It will
be in effect daily from 5 p.m. to 8 a.m. local, extending from 12,000
feet msl to 14,000 feet msl. The TFR extends from 24 nm northeast of
Bisbee Douglass International to 17 nm northwest of Nogales International.
It joins the U.S.-Mexico border and is 15 nm to 17 nm wide in most places.
Air traffic control may clear aircraft through the airspace; however,
pilots must remain on a discrete transponder code and maintain two-way
communications with ATC while operating within the TFR.

“We’re certainly pleased that the FAA has released airspace that the
Department of Homeland Security is not currently using for UAV operations.
However, we still object to the use of TFRs for long-term UAV operations,”
said Melissa Rudinger, AOPA vice president of regulatory affairs. “It is
possible that the FAA will later reissue the 300-nm TFR, so pilots should
check notams before flight to determine the size of the restriction."

See AOPA Online for the full text of the notam along with the lines of
latitude and longitude that detail the exact boundaries of the TFR
( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/notams.html#6/1422 ).
A graphical depiction is also available online
( http://www.aopa.org/images/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/notams/6-1422.jpg ).

This TFR encompasses the security-related TFR near Nogales, Arizona,
that went into effect January 8.

Because TFR airspace frequently changes, AOPA strongly encourages
pilots to obtain a briefing and CHECK NOTAMS before every flight.
TFR violators will be intercepted and forced to land.