Skip to comments.
FAA restrictions bar wider use of drones to patrol border
GovExec.com ^
| November 30, 2005
| Greta Wodele
Posted on 11/30/2005 4:02:36 PM PST by DumpsterDiver
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-50 next last
Nero fiddled, we do environmental impact studies.
To: DumpsterDiver
What part of Homeland Security doesn't the FAA understand?
2
posted on
11/30/2005 4:03:39 PM PST
by
BenLurkin
(O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
To: DumpsterDiver
Well isn't that convenient.
3
posted on
11/30/2005 4:05:37 PM PST
by
cripplecreek
(Never a minigun handy when you need one.)
To: DumpsterDiver
"Nero fiddled, we do environmental impact studies."
Well said.
4
posted on
11/30/2005 4:06:46 PM PST
by
Rebelbase
(Food stamps, section-8, State paid Child support, etc. pay more than the min. wage.)
Comment #5 Removed by Moderator
To: DumpsterDiver
Since when does the FAA have the power to deny a flight that is related to NATIONAL SECURITY? Does the USAF of the Coast Guard ask PERMISSION from the FAA to fly missions?
God forbid we take actions protect our country without conducting an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY first!!
What has our country come to?
6
posted on
11/30/2005 4:12:02 PM PST
by
Jotmo
("Voon", said the mattress.)
To: socketsquirrel
What's wrong with a simple minefield??Somebody might get hurt.
Try again. And this time, try to be a little more warm and fuzzy.
/sarc
To: DumpsterDiver
This could just as accurately be worded...
"Bureaucrat rules prohibit wider use of drones to patrol border"
...with no change in meaning.
8
posted on
11/30/2005 4:12:19 PM PST
by
The Duke
To: DumpsterDiver
CBP also issued an environmental impact study in September that helps clear the way for an expansion of UAV operations from the western corner of Arizona to the eastern corner of Texas, but the agency still needs to work out a deal with the FAA to fly the drones outside restricted military airspace Simple, declare the border to be restricted military airspace, at least below say 5,000 feet. That way the legitimate airliners and private aircraft could cross the border with ease, the drones would have their space to fly in, and the folks coming in low to avoid the ground based radars, could be blown out of the sky with impunity.
There would have to be accommodations made for aircraft arriving and departing from fields within the border zone, but that's done already where such exist within otherwise restricted airspace.
The President also needs to tell the Transportation Secretary to fire the FAA administrator. On second thought, the President should just fire them both. Norm Minetta hasn't been anything to brag about in the Secretary job either.
9
posted on
11/30/2005 4:26:49 PM PST
by
El Gato
To: DumpsterDiver
we don't need drones there. balloons or small blimps with camers would be a lot cheaper and probably just as good.
10
posted on
11/30/2005 4:52:23 PM PST
by
fatrat
To: DumpsterDiver; Travis McGee; B4Ranch
This is unfrickin believable.
11
posted on
11/30/2005 5:25:31 PM PST
by
planekT
(<- http://www.wadejacoby.com/pedro/ ->)
To: planekT
Even though I would prefer a big electrified fence, it's got to drive the President (or any president) nuts with all of this bureaucratic nonsense going on.
Bush was quoted as saying, "Slowly, but surely, technology is being employed up and down the border, and that's a key part of our strategy."
I wonder if he knew just how slow going things would be? It's time to kick some butt.
To: socketsquirrel
What's wrong with a simple minefield??
constant maintenance, constant monitoring, the threat of having an American wander into the field, you name it. There are easier and more effective ways to get it done that DON'T include a minefield.
To: BenLurkin
If Pres. Bush wants them there they will be there.
14
posted on
11/30/2005 5:39:27 PM PST
by
Unicorn
(Too many wimps around.)
To: DumpsterDiver
it's got to drive the President (or any president) nuts I doubt that very much. If Bush was serious about dealing with the border it would have been delt with long ago.
Bush doesn't want the borders closed or policed. One need only look at his inaction and lunatic amnesty ideas.
15
posted on
11/30/2005 5:43:00 PM PST
by
antaresequity
(PUSH 1 FOR ENGLISH, PUSH 2 TO BE DEPORTED)
To: DumpsterDiver
I know it takes an act of God to get an FAA waiver to conduct UAV flights off of a military installation and into Class E airspace, even with the use of chase aircraft, backup ground control stations, operating in existing MOAs and posting NOTAMs. It's frikkin' madness.
16
posted on
11/30/2005 5:47:05 PM PST
by
TADSLOS
(Right Wing Infidel since 1954)
To: DumpsterDiver
58 milion for 4 drones and many times that for manpower
required to operate them. we can do a much better job with
a lot less money. Here is a simple way to do a better job
much cheaper. build a 100 ft tower every mile along the
border and equip each with a webcam and satellite internet
capability for controlling and observing. hire people to
sit in their studies, back porches, or whereever to watch
the cameras over the internet. one person should be easily
capable of watching and controlling 8 cameras. they can call in anything that looks suspicious. test them at random to see if they miss anything that they should have
reported. if so, fire them, no second chances.
here is my bid for the operation:
build 4000 towers and equip them at $5000 per 20,000,000
500 manhours x 24 x 365 x $20 per hour 87,600,000
annual maintenance on towers and webcams 2,000,000
sub-total 109,600,000
profit and overhead 21,400,000
total bid for first year 130,000,000
if this contract doesn't make me filthy rich, i will sell tower space to cellphone companies and wireless internet to locals to make whatever additional money i need.
oh, what the hell, might as well round the bid off to an even billion. a paltry sum i'm sure compared to whatever piss-poor method the govt will put into play.
17
posted on
11/30/2005 5:57:47 PM PST
by
fatrat
To: DumpsterDiver
Obviously, the government does not want patrolling to be effective.
To: cripplecreek; DumpsterDiver
Our covert open borders Quislings love to talk about drones and sensors and other crap they can delay, underfund or hamstring.
But they will never do the one thing which would be both cheap and effective--because they want the border open, no matter what lies they spin.
19
posted on
11/30/2005 6:43:43 PM PST
by
Travis McGee
(--- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com ---)
To: DumpsterDiver
Anyway you slice it, we have the technology to secure the border. A good double fence with sensors to detect tampering would probably stop 90% of them. With the addition of electricity (AVISO!) probably damn near all of them.
Not sure how wide an angle the drones can see, but if it was only one mile, you'd need 540 of them to record every mile once a minute (at 7 million a pop, that's under 4 billion bucks) . I bet they have cameras on them that are much better then that. If they can record a four or five mile stretch (I bet they can) then the price drops to around a billion for that kind of surveillance.
The drones might be useful. People are going to cross at places which are convenient and safe. The drones could expose those places. Of course, you still have to have the manpower to follow up on the information (arrest illegals in other words, and deport them).
Which brings up another thing I've been thinking about. Why in the hell are we talking about building more prisons to detain illegals? Why can't we just say you're here illegally, so back you go? How long does it really take to figure out that someone is not a U.S. Citizen and is here illegally?
I'm frustrated because this isn't about technology, or what is the right thing to do. This is about a lack of will on the part of our politicians to secure the border. This is about politicians, including our President, who are not against depressing wages and raising taxes (well, how else can we fund the freebies for illegals?) to support an invasion which is being helped along by a country called Mexico who routinely steal from their people and encourage those they can't steal from (because they have nothing to steal) to migrate to America.
We spend so much money helping the world. What the hell is the world doing for us? Financing terrorists, sending us their people they don't want? Sticking their hand out at every turn and event?
How long can we keep this up? IMO, not much longer at all. I give us less then 30 years before we are bankrupt for our foolishness.
20
posted on
11/30/2005 6:48:09 PM PST
by
planekT
(<- http://www.wadejacoby.com/pedro/ ->)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-50 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson