I see this as a threat to general aviation

If I'm flying VFR, it's up to me to see and avoid. A Predator is somewhat larger than the average GA single, and a Reaper is bigger yet, so I'm not sure that's a real problem...I think I'm more concerned about the concept of using a military asset for domestic surveillance than the possiblity of a collision.
 
Trapper John said:
I think I'm more concerned about the concept of using a military asset for domestic surveillance than the possiblity of a collision.
Click to expand...

I think the idea is that they would be procured and run by a civilian agency, like the Dumbpartment of Homeland Security. This doesn't really change the fact that the hardware was designed and created for the military, but it does change who has responsibility for it.
 
Trapper John said:
If I'm flying VFR, it's up to me to see and avoid.
Click to expand...

Didn't read the article. HOWEVER, when there are two "manned" vehicles looking for each other, you have at least TWO sets of eyes looking. Not sure how a UAV or AAV looks for other traffic.
 
Trapper John said:
If I'm flying VFR, it's up to me to see and avoid. A Predator is somewhat larger than the average GA single, and a Reaper is bigger yet, so I'm not sure that's a real problem...I think I'm more concerned about the concept of using a military asset for domestic surveillance than the possiblity of a collision.
Click to expand...

It's up to me to see and avoid, but I expect the other guy to do the same. More eyeballs = more safety.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Didn't read the article. HOWEVER, when there are two "manned" vehicles looking for each other, you have at least TWO sets of eyes looking. Not sure how a UAV or AAV looks for other traffic.
Click to expand...

Supposedly, they use a variant of TCAS, along with other sensors...
 
No worries the electronics have better see and avoid discipline than most GA pilots.
 
ClimbnSink said:
No worries the electronics have better see and avoid discipline than most GA pilots.
Click to expand...

...and they don't have their head down to program the GPS or trouble-shoot a problem with the chart-view software.

The real question is why use a $3.5mil plane for a mission that a contract pilot and 2 CBP officers in a $600k Cessna 206 can perform just as well ? There is a reason to use UAVs in an environment where people shoot at you, but the pot-smugglers at the canadian border are for the most part peaceful.
 
ClimbnSink said:
No worries the electronics have better see and avoid discipline than most GA pilots.
Click to expand...

Interesting statement given that most of them have no see and avoid at all and those that do rely on TCAS.

There are two main types: Remotely Piloted Vehicles (RPVs) and Drones (which is a mis label IMO) which are semi autonomous. The really small ones (which local law enforcement agencies have been wanting to use for a while) are just fancy RC aircraft with some kind of sensor suite. Larger RPVs (like Predator) may have TCAS or may not, but have a very small field of view and are focused on the ground rather than what's in front of them. If you don't have a transponder that supports TCAS or they don't support TCAS, they have NO WAY to see you.

I'm not as up on this as I was a year or so ago, but I don't know of any autonomous (i.e. Drones) that have any avoidance capability at all.

I think they are inevitable in US Airspace, so I think we'll have to learn how to live with them. But part of the burden will fall on GA as there's really no practical solution to see and avoid without technology in the target (i.e. us).

John
 
My comment was tongue in cheek, I assume they have some short range radar? The little ones the local PDs want are flown line of sight correct? Of course some judgment would still be required in their use. UAVs are coming and we are better off planning to deal with them then fight them. FYI I pretty much only fly nordo aircraft, but I ain't worried yet...
 
jsstevens said:
Interesting statement given that most of them have no see and avoid at all and those that do rely on TCAS.

There are two main types: Remotely Piloted Vehicles (RPVs) and Drones (which is a mis label IMO) which are semi autonomous. The really small ones (which local law enforcement agencies have been wanting to use for a while) are just fancy RC aircraft with some kind of sensor suite. Larger RPVs (like Predator) may have TCAS or may not, but have a very small field of view and are focused on the ground rather than what's in front of them. If you don't have a transponder that supports TCAS or they don't support TCAS, they have NO WAY to see you.

I'm not as up on this as I was a year or so ago, but I don't know of any autonomous (i.e. Drones) that have any avoidance capability at all.

I think they are inevitable in US Airspace, so I think we'll have to learn how to live with them. But part of the burden will fall on GA as there's really no practical solution to see and avoid without technology in the target (i.e. us).

John
Click to expand...

"Too close for missiles, switching to guns!"
 
ClimbnSink said:
My comment was tongue in cheek, I assume they have some short range radar? The little ones the local PDs want are flown line of sight correct? Of course some judgment would still be required in their use. UAVs are coming and we are better off planning to deal with them then fight them. FYI I pretty much only fly nordo aircraft, but I ain't worried yet...
Click to expand...

Sorry, I didn't see the bulge from here... :smilewinkgrin:

I'm not aware of any with short range radar either (again, my info may not be entirely current). The small ones should be operated line of sight, but they don't (from a technical perspective) have to be.

I agree that fighting them is pretty much useless in the long term. It's like holding back the tide. And I don't really see any practical see and avoid solution that doesn't involve everybody (even you NORDO types) having a query & response or broadcast capability. ADS-B will make it possible, but that's a decade away and expensive.

Also, for autonomous ones, the software to "detect-and-avoid" will be ever vigilant and not be distracted by programming the GPS, etc, but for RPVs you're still at the mercy of the pilot's attention AND he or she has no skin in the game.:hairraise:

John
 
weilke said:
...and they don't have their head down to program the GPS or trouble-shoot a problem with the chart-view software.

The real question is why use a $3.5mil plane for a mission that a contract pilot and 2 CBP officers in a $600k Cessna 206 can perform just as well ? There is a reason to use UAVs in an environment where people shoot at you, but the pot-smugglers at the canadian border are for the most part peaceful.
Click to expand...

That's the question I was wondering, but to answer it we'd need to know the long-term expenses, and we'd also need to consider any advantages of a UAV such as dramatically extended flight times.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
That's the question I was wondering, but to answer it we'd need to know the long-term expenses, and we'd also need to consider any advantages of a UAV such as dramatically extended flight times.
Click to expand...

The long term expenses of a 3.5mil turbine plane vs. a $600k recip ?

Just because the UAVs don't have a pilot on board doesn't mean they don't require personnel. We have a UAV base operated by the ANG and I have talked to some of the pilots / operators / A&P / comm specialists. There is a whole team on the ground controlling one or more UAVs, in addition, in the surveillance role you have a number of analysts reviewing the footage. In the end, you still need a guy with a pickup-truck and boots to pick up whoever is violating the border (unless the policy of extrajudicial killings is expanded to include migrants and pot smugglers).

30hr mission times are great if you are trying to protect some travel routes in Randomstan from bad buys planting boms. If you are along either of the US borders with an airport every 100miles, not so much of an advantage.
 
weilke said:
The long term expenses of a 3.5mil turbine plane vs. a $600k recip ?

Just because the UAVs don't have a pilot on board doesn't mean they don't require personnel. We have a UAV base operated by the ANG and I have talked to some of the pilots / operators / A&P / comm specialists. There is a whole team on the ground controlling one or more UAVs, in addition, in the surveillance role you have a number of analysts reviewing the footage. In the end, you still need a guy with a pickup-truck and boots to pick up whoever is violating the border (unless the policy of extrajudicial killings is expanded to include migrants and pot smugglers).

30hr mission times are great if you are trying to protect some travel routes in Randomstan from bad buys planting boms. If you are along either of the US borders with an airport every 100miles, not so much of an advantage.
Click to expand...

We're not just talking personnel expenses. We're talking fuel, maintenance, risk of crashes; and all of that as compared to any advantages gained, or drawbacks suffered.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
We're not just talking personnel expenses. We're talking fuel, maintenance, risk of crashes; and all of that as compared to any advantages gained, or drawbacks suffered.
Click to expand...

At one point, 100% of the Reapers operated by CBP had crashed, also in military use their crash rate has been considerable. As for fuel burn, this thing carries 4000lbs of fuel and has a TPE331 up front. How little do you think it sips per hour....

The advantage gained is employment for plenty of people at general atomics and the opportunity for a bunch of CBP officials to be 'innovative'.
 
Trapper John said:
I think I'm more concerned about the concept of using a military asset for domestic surveillance than the possiblity of a collision.
Click to expand...

A large number of things that are used today for civilian law enforcement have military origins, like radar, heck even aircraft themselves, while developed in the civilian world, underwent huge innovation in the military before becoming mainstream in terms of LE.
 
JeffDG said:
A large number of things that are used today for civilian law enforcement have military origins, like radar, heck even aircraft themselves, while developed in the civilian world, underwent huge innovation in the military before becoming mainstream in terms of LE.
Click to expand...


Right, but various legal protections afforded citizens don't apply to DoD stuff.

Which is why those protections need to be continually -- protected.
 
dmccormack said:
Right, but various legal protections afforded citizens don't apply to DoD stuff.

Which is why those protections need to be continually -- protected.
Click to expand...


A Predator operated by CBP is not a DoD asset, it's a CBP civilian asset. Same thing if your local PD buys one.

Just because it was developed for the military doesn't make it a military asset forevermore.
 
JeffDG said:
A Predator operated by CBP is not a DoD asset, it's a CBP civilian asset. Same thing if your local PD buys one.

Just because it was developed for the military doesn't make it a military asset forevermore.
Click to expand...

Right -- it's just that the capabilities built into DoD systems can ignore all sorts of constraints placed on civilian LE.

Yet it's very tempting to use those capabilities when the widget is "civilianized."
 
weilke said:
At one point, 100% of the Reapers operated by CBP had crashed, also in military use their crash rate has been considerable. As for fuel burn, this thing carries 4000lbs of fuel and has a TPE331 up front. How little do you think it sips per hour....

The advantage gained is employment for plenty of people at general atomics and the opportunity for a bunch of CBP officials to be 'innovative'.
Click to expand...

I don't know the answers to any of these questions, which is why I raised the point.
 
dmccormack said:
Right -- it's just that the capabilities built into DoD systems can ignore all sorts of constraints placed on civilian LE.

Yet it's very tempting to use those capabilities when the widget is "civilianized."
Click to expand...

If the police go outside of the bounds they're allowed to operate in, they're penalized for it - namely, the evidence gained by illegal conduct is not admissible in court.

A good example would be the use of infrared devices to look inside houses without warrants. The capability exists, it's been done, and it's been shot down as contrary to the 4th Amendment.

Don't get me wrong - I see where you're coming from and I fully agree. I'm just saying that we have safeguards against abuses. The key, in my eyes at least, is to ensure that those safeguards both exist and work, and to rigorously enforce them.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
If the police go outside of the bounds they're allowed to operate in, they're penalized for it - namely, the evidence gained by illegal conduct is not admissible in court.

A good example would be the use of infrared devices to look inside houses without warrants. The capability exists, it's been done, and it's been shot down as contrary to the 4th Amendment.

Don't get me wrong - I see where you're coming from and I fully agree. I'm just saying that we have safeguards against abuses. The key, in my eyes at least, is to ensure that those safeguards both exist and work, and to rigorously enforce them.
Click to expand...

Thus my earlier post that constitutional protections need constant protection.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
A good example would be the use of infrared devices to look inside houses without warrants. The capability exists, it's been done, and it's been shot down as contrary to the 4th Amendment.
Click to expand...

David, honest question here.

Let's say I had a neighbour who I thought was doing a grow-op in his house. Me being a concerned citizen neigbour who loves electronic gadgets, go out and spend $2k on one of these:
QVTIMG20100430182744998.jpg


I look at his house and see that it's throwing of tons of heat compared to everyone else in the neighbourhood.

I call the police and report this to them.

Were they to do such a scan themselves sans warrant, it would be inadmissible, but I'm a private party, so I don't give a **** about the 4th Amendment, as it doesn't apply to my actions. Can the police use my report as probable cause to do their own official scan/search?
 
JeffDG said:
I call the police and report this to them.

Were they to do such a scan themselves sans warrant, it would be inadmissible, but I'm a private party, so I don't give a **** about the 4th Amendment, as it doesn't apply to my actions. Can the police use my report as probable cause to do their own official scan/search?
Click to expand...

I'm not David but will guess a smart officer ignore your FLIR experiment and instead ask questions that provide Probable Cause, then get a warrant. The FLIR toy won't be part of the warrant process.
 
JeffDG said:
David, honest question here.

Let's say I had a neighbour who I thought was doing a grow-op in his house. Me being a concerned citizen neigbour who loves electronic gadgets, go out and spend $2k on one of these:
QVTIMG20100430182744998.jpg


I look at his house and see that it's throwing of tons of heat compared to everyone else in the neighbourhood.

I call the police and report this to them.

Were they to do such a scan themselves sans warrant, it would be inadmissible, but I'm a private party, so I don't give a **** about the 4th Amendment, as it doesn't apply to my actions. Can the police use my report as probable cause to do their own official scan/search?
Click to expand...

Are you familiar with agency law? Without going into boring details, the basic idea is that the actions of an agent are imputed to the principal. In other words, if I'm your agent and I sign on a contract in your name, you're bound by that contract absent a very few exceptions (none of which are applicable here). Put differently, the principal is responsible for the actions of the agent when committed in the principal's name.

Anyway, you get the same concept in 4th Amendment law. Obviously, the police can have agents who aren't actually police officers, which is where the following doctrine arose from. It's since expanded to cover people of whom the police might not be aware, but whose subjective intent is to aid the police.

So, with all of that in mind, the rule is that if you are working on behalf of the police, either at police request or subjectively (which would be your scenario), the 4th Amendment applies to your action just as much as if you are an actual police officer.

This prevents the police from hiring Joe Shmoe from off the street to do something like go through peoples' bags when they're not looking, and then arguing "he doesn't need PC because he's not the government."

And it also prevents the nosy neighbor from doing things like you've described.
 
dmccormack said:
I'm not David but will guess a smart officer ignore your FLIR experiment and instead ask questions that provide Probable Cause, then get a warrant. The FLIR toy won't be part of the warrant process.
Click to expand...

That's right on. If I'm a police officer investigating this kind of complaint, I'm going to do things like monitor traffic to/from the house. I'll look in the garbage (no need for a warrant) to see if there are things like an excessive number of fertilizer bags or light bulbs. I might try to get your electric bills.
 
To elaborate on it a little bit further, here's something I wrote about three years ago on when a private citizen's actions may become subject to the 4th Amendment:

A citizen must be acting in direct concert with law enforcement to be considered an agent of the state. A private citizen can also be an agent of the state if his duties require him to act in a capacity similar to a law enforcement officer. In simpler terms, there must be a clear and extensive connection between the citizen and law enforcement.

On the other hand, mere cooperation or assistance does not create an agency relationship between a private citizen and the state. The fact that a citizen’s observations or actions serve to further an investigation also does not create the agency relationship.
Click to expand...

So, based on my 3-year old memory of the law here, there has to be a substantial connection between the citizen and law enforcement. Merely being a pro-state witness doesn't make you subject to the 4th Amendment. Yet, if you act with the intent that your observations will be used for a prosecution - even without acting on behalf of the state - you're getting a lot closer to that line, and probably crossing it (this is a case-by-case thing, though).
 
Last edited:
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
To elaborate on it a little bit further, here's something I wrote about three years ago on when a private citizen's actions may become subject to the 4th Amendment:



So, based on my 3-year old memory of the law here, there has to be a substantial connection between the citizen and law enforcement. Merely being a pro-state witness doesn't make you subject to the 4th Amendment. Yet, if you act with the intent that your observations will be used for a prosecution - even without acting on behalf of the state - you're getting a lot closer to that line, and probably crossing it (this is a case-by-case thing, though).
Click to expand...

So, I I get FLIR and just goof off pointing it all the houses in the neighbourhood and say "Whoa...that one's a lot hotter than any of the others", and had no prior intention of finding that, that's admissible.

If I get POd at my neighbour and get a device just to gather evidence against him, that's a no-go.
 
JeffDG said:
So, I I get FLIR and just goof off pointing it all the houses in the neighbourhood and say "Whoa...that one's a lot hotter than any of the others", and had no prior intention of finding that, that's admissible.

If I get POd at my neighbour and get a device just to gather evidence against him, that's a no-go.
Click to expand...

Constitutionally speaking, all things being equal, the former's got a lot better chance of getting in - or being used in an application for a warrant - than the latter does.

I'm not willing to unequivocally say that it's automatically in, though. I'll go with possibly. :)

I say that because, if I were a judge reviewing the case, I'd be interested in why you contacted the police about it. In other words, in terms of credibility, I wouldn't necessarily be inclined to believe a story of "I was just goofing off with my new IR scanner and, upon noticing a house warmer than all of the others, I realized that there was likely a grow operation going on, and thus contacted Officer Friendly - but I definitely wasn't looking for anything with my device that can see through walls." I mean...that's just not entirely plausible, you evil neighbor, you. :)

Now, if you had a really attractive neighbor, I'd consider otherwise. :eek:
 
David -

Taking this convo with Jeff down a slightly twisted path...

Jeff's neighbor has a grow house. He is looking for some form of protection from LEO's. If Jeff reports what he sees with his gizmo, does that provide said neighbor protection as the reasonableness of any subsequent LE search may be deemed dependent upon Jeff's initial assertion? :dunno:

Just exercising my mind :wink2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top