DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • PEO Soldier
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Drones » Desk Jockeys vs. Border Drones

Desk Jockeys vs. Border Drones

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.
predB.jpgIn 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.

Share |

December 2nd, 2005 | Drones | 294527 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2005/12/02/desk-jockeys-vs-border-drones/Desk+Jockeys+vs.+Border+Drones2005-12-02+16%3A18%3A28jason You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Missile Defense Trifecta | Gunboats Back in Style » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Byron Skinner says:
    December 2, 2005 at 3:04 pm

    Good Morning Folks,
    I know many of you are impressed by the tech­nol­ogy of the UAV,s and it is impres­sive. Sensors can read a hand of cards from 20K ft. and that is a prob­lem.
    The Patroit Act has eroded many of our tra­di­tional American Freedoms do we need this level of sur­veilance in the skys above us.
    Everyone is going to say well they are going to only us it on our Southern bor­der, don’t bet on it. Also there is the mat­ter of who has access to the infor­ma­tion Predators would gather.
    It’s one thing fly­ing over the coun­try side and see­ing who is nude sun­bathing or what ever other activies that take place in back­yards, hey put your clothes on or go inside if you don’t want to be on a world wide link but what about com­mer­i­cal snoop­ing. Do Contractors want the IRS count­ing the num­ber of Backholes they have in their yard or an auto dealer want­ing the cars on his lot counted from above. I think not.
    Now I know most of you will say, well that just won’t hap­pen, not in the United States. Don’t bet on it, over­head sur­veilance with cheap plat­forms in the hand of domes­tic Government Agencies will be just to much of a temp­ta­tion.
    Lets keep Predators and it sib­lings off shore and watch­ing other peo­ple.
    ALLONS,
    Byron Skinner

    Reply
  2. The Cenobyte says:
    December 2, 2005 at 3:32 pm

    Byron,
    Your the one that needs to watch his bets if you think cheap and easy domes­tic sur­veil­lance is not here and get­ting bet­ter and bet­ter all the time despite the fact that the FAA is sup­press­ing UAVs domes­tic use. Satellites imag­ing, high and low fly­ing manned air­craft and remote con­trolled air­craft falling below the weight and size lev­els to be reg­u­lated by the FAA are being used all over the place. These tech­nolo­gies are improv­ing all the time and unless the FAA stops sup­press­ing the UAV they will just pass it up in use­ful­ness and tech­nol­ogy due to cus­tomer demand (Domestic is totally going to out­strip mil­i­tary in no time) and the FAA will be able to do noth­ing about it.
    What makes sense is for the FAA to allow the use in a rea­son­able and reg­u­lated man­ner in order to have some over­sight and con­trol (Even if it is only in the short term) while allow­ing govt. agen­cies to be more effec­tive while sav­ing money.

    Reply
  3. Aaron says:
    December 2, 2005 at 10:42 pm

    I dis­agree with Mr. Skinner. Clearly the gov­ern­ment should know how many black­holes some­one might have in their yard, becouse even one black­hole in the hands of ter­ror­ists would be too much.
    It could swal­low the whole panet!

    Reply
  4. David Warnock says:
    December 3, 2005 at 9:25 pm

    The prob­lem that the FAA has has thre facets.
    1. The FAA does not have the equip­ment and per­son­nel to mon­i­tor unmanned flights along the bor­ders. Their autho­rized work­force and equip­ment is barely able to han­dle the traf­fic load they cur­rently han­dle.
    2. Training and com­mu­ni­ca­tions with the oper­a­tors of the drones. FAA can rea­son­ably demand a level of train­ing of the oper­a­tors and the abil­ity to make imme­di­ate con­tact with the oper­a­tor of any given drone. FAA orders about flight path must take prece­dence over all other orders, since they are always given for flight safety rea­sons.
    3. Ability to track and iden­tify the unmanned air vehi­cles requires onboard radar bea­cons on the UAV to respond with flight iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and alti­tude. FAA can­not meet its air safety sep­a­ra­tion require­ments with­out being able to locate the drones on radar and know their alti­tude at all times. UAVs are very small radar tar­gets, very dif­fi­cult to detect and track. That is an advan­tage on the bat­tle­field, but a seri­ous prob­lem in civil­ian air­space.
    These require­ments are not mere bureau­cratic mumbo-​​jumbo. They affect the safety of flight of all com­mer­cial and mil­i­tary flights in the vicin­ity of the U. S. bor­ders, par­tic­u­larly inter­na­tional flights. The FAA is cor­rect to require that these prob­lems be solved before the UAVs oper­ate along the bor­der. Their job is flight safety.

    Reply
  5. Joe Katzman says:
    December 5, 2005 at 8:04 pm

    This bit about UAVs need­ing advance clear­ance, etc.? Not just a US issue. It’s also an issue in Iraq:
    http://​www​.defen​sein​dus​try​daily​.com/​2​0​0​5​/​1​1​/​f​i​e​l​d​-​r​e​p​o​r​t​-​o​n​-​r​a​v​e​n​-​s​h​a​d​o​w​-​u​a​v​s​-​f​r​o​m​-​t​h​e​-​1​0​1​s​t​/​i​n​d​e​x​.​php

    Reply
  6. Eric Duckworth says:
    December 6, 2005 at 3:46 pm

    I think that with thhe FAA vs DHS/​Fed Gov’t on the UAV issue, the FAA needs to be beaten with a stick and told how it’s going to be.
    I for one would love to see more use of UAVs domes­ti­cally to help aug­ment that human assets in all gov’t agen­cies.
    Guess I’m one of the weirdos who aren’t afraid of my gov­ern­ment.
    Eric the Dread0395

    Reply
  7. Randy McCleary says:
    December 7, 2005 at 10:37 am

    Unlike a mil­i­tary bat­tle­field, drones have to coex­ist with licensed, piloted air­craft that can be talk­ing with a con­troller or may choose to not to be under pos­i­tive con­trol. Pilots have defined rules for air­craft avoid­ance, fre­quen­cies for noti­fi­ca­tion and alerts, transpon­der codes to feed TCAS (traf­fic Collision Avoidance Systems) and the Mark-​​1 Eyeball. Drones lack the over­sight and rules needed to safely nav­i­gate in con­gested air­space along­side real flesh/​blood pilots.
    For those who opt for carv­ing out air­space for drones-​​only, that is where they are now, in mil­i­tary air­space. However, even in mil­i­tary air­space, civil­ian air­craft in the US can tra­verse with FAA clear­ance or with­out. Also why should a pilot-​​less drone be afforded more rights to air­space than piloted air­craft? The FAA and many pilots agree.
    No more would I want a ROV roam­ing around my neigh­bor­hood than sim­i­larly want a ROV fly­ing around me in the much more dan­ger­ous airspace.

    Reply
  8. Joe Pembroke says:
    December 7, 2005 at 11:33 am

    My son is cur­rently in the air force…and works with the main­taince as a sat­comm tech.…and is get­ting out this july.…and will be look­ing for a job.….is this a job within the bor­der patrol

    Reply
  9. cheap rs gold says:
    August 2, 2008 at 1:43 am

    I also give my account to her, she want to play my num­ber, she also can play. But one day, I found she had another hus­band, and she have no longer to play with me. And I found my num­ber is empty, she took my things changed the cheap RS gold. I was very sad; I did not believe she is the girl that I know.

    Reply
  10. Shaiya money says:
    August 9, 2008 at 2:15 am

    You can use Shaiya money all items in the game, includ­ing the dev­as­tat­ing Goddess weapons. However, this power comes at a cost: if your char­ac­ter dies, you have only 3 min­utes to be res­ur­rected or your char­ac­ter is deleted and you must start all over.

    Reply
  11. fiesta Gold says:
    August 19, 2008 at 10:33 pm

    In fact I think in the game the most impor­tant was not the fiesta Gold or the upgrade, in my mind play with friends and get more friend­ship were the most important.

    Reply
  12. 2moons dil says:
    August 19, 2008 at 11:09 pm

    Every day I was early to get up then sit in front of the com­puter, started to the upgrade or earn the 2moons dil, I was prac­tic­ing shaman, the shaman can good upgrade, quickly I up to the 80 level, than I enter to the P upgrade, in there I under­stand a QS.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

    Today's Hottest Topics
    Recent Comments
    • BREAK-BREAK: Units to Get New Camo Revealed
      gee lets forget about winning a war as long...
      greg stocks
    • New Camo Pattern on the Block
      Time to bring military clothing into the 21st century. I...
      bobbymike
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Part IV : …………...
      freefallingbomb
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Part III : …………...
      freefallingbomb
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Part II : But beam-riding isn't used by bombers...
      freefallingbomb
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      To the poster "Charles" : Part I :...
      freefallingbomb
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Good observations about drones. The real potential of laser...
      Will
    • New Camo Pattern on the Block
      The most simple thing is have 2 basic issued uniforms....
      Big Daddy
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Valid observation, Charles. This is all so new that it's hard...
      Will
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Part III : But, as I said in a previous comment, I...
      freefallingbomb
    Recent Articles
    • Army Launches Examination of Armor Testing
    • New Camo Pattern on the Block
    • BAE to Market Mantis UAV to North America
    • Pinnacle’s New Armor
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
    • Northrop Invests Own Money In Fire Scout
    • IMINT: French Fashion Mavens Model MultiCam
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
    • Super Cavitation and the Truth
    • Mantis Begins Search For Prey
    Recent Hot Topics
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • The Osprey has Landed
    • UPDATED: Details on Army's New Afghanistan Duds
    • Iraq Cyber Attack and the DigiSEALs
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
    • Pinnacle's New Armor
    • (Proof) The Osprey Has Landed
    • Grim Wanat Footage
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    • IMINT: French Fashion Mavens Model MultiCam
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage