Posted on 12/03/2005 2:01:57 PM PST by gaijin
The President wants it to happen. The guys on the ground want it to happen. And their bosses in DC want it to happen. But that doesn't mean the bureaucrats are going to let unmanned spy planes start patrolling the southern border.
In a speech in El Paso earlier this week, President Bush said he wanted more cash for border patrol technologies, including drones. Border patrol agents -- at least the ones I visited -- thought the robo-planes did a world of good during, when they briefly had them. (And, with millions illegally entering the country every year, these guys could use all the help they can get.)
U.S. Customs and Border Protection recently bought a new Predator B drone to help its agents out. But that may be the only unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) the Federal Aviation Administration lets the border guards use, GovExec reports.
After more than two years of negotiations, the Homeland Security Department's U.S. Customs and Border Protection Directorate recently finalized a deal with the FAA to fly one drone in the Tucson, Ariz., area.
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. Because of the restrictions, CBP officials have been forced to deploy a fleet of Blackhawk helicopters to patrol the rest of the southern border.
A CBP spokesman said Wednesday that the agency has recently received the "green light" to buy its second UAV early next year and plans to deploy the drone in the Tucson area until CBP and FAA officials reach additional agreements.
"We have to talk and ask for permission, but FAA is very strict," he said. "We're looking at what we can do to get exemptions" from FAA regulations or maximize the requirements set by FAA for UAVs.
Drone manufacturers, and handlers, have been tangling for years with the FAA over when and where UAVs can fly here at home. Here's a snippet from an article I wrote for the Times three years ago, which to the best of knowledge, is still essentially true:
Jim Brass, a colleague of Mr. Herwitz at the NASA Ames Research Center at Moffett Field, Calif., sought to use a drone last November to look at a forest fire in the San Gabriel Mountains, north of Los Angeles.
But the Federal Aviation Administration refused to let the drone fly. Getting to the fire, a ''controlled burn'' begun by the Forest Service to thin trees, would have involved flying through the approach to the suburban airport in Ontario, Calif., and the F.A.A. did not want a drone in crowded airspace.
It is a common problem for civilian drones. A small, piloted airplane can operate pretty much anywhere with little or no notification. But flying a drone means filing for a certificate of authorization, a narrowly drawn permission slip from the F.A.A. to roam a small strip of the skies. Getting the certificate takes months.
''We aren't pursuing commercial applications over America because U.A.V. flights are so restricted by the F.A.A.,'' Mr. Sliwa said, reflecting a common approach in the industry. The agency has yet to issue minimum standards for the drones' hardware and software. There are no guidelines on how the drones' human operators should be trained.
Okay, obviously you don't want to let pilotless planes roam the skies with no supervision. But, c'mon... it's been three years. It can't be that hard to carve out some space for these drones.
The FAA is just WRONG!!!
If the FAA stops drones from going near airports that is totally understandable. But if they stop government drones from going far away from airports, over desolated areas on the border, that is bad. Congressional action might be needed.
What manner of insanity is this? The areas with little to no air traffic and minimal ground activity are precisely where we need these drones! They won't be in the way of anything!
unnngh!
Yep, that will do it, for less money as well -- build the fence.
It is both breathtaking and disheartening to see a government at war with itself.
We can't have those drones interfering with drug smuggling planes coming up from Mexico.
Why is the White House playing mother-may-I with the FAA? This is an easy problem to solve. Just mandate that the FAA doesn't get their 2006 operating budget until they stop slow-rolling the authorization certificates. With the prospect of no money for 2006, they'll get their slow bureaucratic asses in gear right quick.
I can't begin to tell you how hard it is to deal with the FAA on UAV waiver issues.
These people are "working" on a geologic time clock. Bureaucracy doesn't begin to cover it.
Do the UAVs get Hellfire missiles, too? That's a great way to deter illegal immigration.
My brother has been building commercial heliports forabout 30 years. He deals with the FAA all of the time. He cannot stand the FAA. If he were on this thread, he could rant for hours.
I agree. We could use the cement from Mexico to build the wall. (Mexico produces a tremendous amount of cement). And NAFTA would be happy too!
Any statements or excuses about..... oh we can't do that because the FAA says so.... is diversional BS from the top down....
Lock the borders down NOW and "control" entry to and from this nation......no need to stop it, just control it.
Put a transponder on it and control it like any other aircraft.
Fine. Then make all the airspace along a 12 mile wide strip from 14,000ft to FL 190 (14,000-19,000ft) restricted military airspace. That should give plenty of space above and below that belt for commercial and civilian flight unrestricted or under FAA control and plenty of space to fly the drones. In addition, if the drone isn't flying in a portion of the restricted area strip at a certain time the FAA can make the restricted airspace "inactive" allowing regular flight. But even if the airspace is "active", they can still see the drones and vector aircraft around them in the airspace if necessary.
Somebody in the FAA is doing a "slow roll" here. They are likely either protecting their turf or trying to avoid the horrendous Environmental Impact Study which is involved and will no doubt take years and years to complete before the first flight.
This is only a show-stopper because somebody in auithority in the FAA is making it one (probably a Clinton holdover).
UAV drones are just little more than a plecebo to make it appear that the Government is doing something useful. They will be marginally useful (at best) in helping to deploy scarce border patrol personnel. Even so, a UAV flying over a wide area will generate hundreds of hits, some real, some false. You still need boots on the ground to check it out. You also need to ammend catch-and-release laws. You also have to have real penalties for people caught crossing multiple ties.
As cruel as this may sound, if you had a shoot to kill policy at the border, that would slow the illegal flood to a trickle very quickly. In contrast, a wall and other high tech measures will cost billions without any real guarantee of success. I am not suggesting we target "innocents", but I'm sure the patrol knows the M/O of some of the more flagrent, criminal violators. I would not hesitate to give these guys their reward. Even a few fatalies (or even injuries) would send a message that we mean business.
I might be wrong here.
But I suspect once again that the President threw us a bone again by saying he would tighten up the border using UAV's. But knew all along that the FAA would stop the use of them on the border. So now he can say look I tried but the FAA won't allow them.
The predator is in use in Tuscon and will seen be in use in other areas of the border.
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.