What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Once Again..."STAY AWAY FROM THE AEROSTAT!"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ron,

Not to minimize or condone flight through R-2916 or to not appreciate your frustration, this post does not belong on this forum - 99.9% of RV pilots do not have occasion to fly in your area of operation near Key West. And if they did, most would not penetrate the area so the number is more like 99.999%. The message is like getting a lecture on drinking untreated water in Africa - it doesn't apply here.

Beyond that, the designation of airspace for what you are doing should be PROHIBITED. Would that be possible (?) - probably not considering the bureaucratic government jungle controlling such matters. The activity does not meet that defined within a PROHIBITED area or some such excuse.

No question, unauthorized flight activity within a RESTRICTED area can be very hazardous but such activity is not wholly prohibited, read AIM on the subject. How that wording got in the book is probably the result of a compromise concerning locking up more airspace in this country.

That is an issue I am concerned about. If the government had a totally free hand in the matter, we would be lucky to have any airspace to fly in. The restrictions imposed since 9-11 are very apparent with moving TFR's popping up everywhere for all kinds of reasons, usually political. Every gathering of people can be and is so designated.

Also, there are designated areas that seldom get used. That last time I called ATC about flying through a MOA, the controller responded the area has not been used for months.

Getting back to RESTRICTED areas, be smart, stay out of them. Flying is hazardous enough without throwing that element into the brew.
 
Pierre, I agree. Sometimes the FAA does try to protect us from something difficult to see with a restricted area. There is a 1400' tower 2 miles north of my airport (8A6). The nearly invisible wire supports are there waiting to remove a wing from the negligent. Hopefully there will be no restricted area:eek:
 
Agreed

Ron,

Not to minimize or condone flight through R-2916 or to not appreciate your frustration, this post does not belong on this forum - 99.9% of RV pilots do not have occasion to fly in your area of operation near Key West. And if they did, most would not penetrate the area so the number is more like 99.999%. The message is like getting a lecture on drinking untreated water in Africa - it doesn't apply here.

Beyond that, the designation of airspace for what you are doing should be PROHIBITED. Would that be possible (?) - probably not considering the bureaucratic government jungle controlling such matters. The activity does not meet that defined within a PROHIBITED area or some such excuse.

No question, unauthorized flight activity within a RESTRICTED area can be very hazardous but such activity is not wholly prohibited, read AIM on the subject. How that wording got in the book is probably the result of a compromise concerning locking up more airspace in this country.

That is an issue I am concerned about. If the government had a totally free hand in the matter, we would be lucky to have any airspace to fly in. The restrictions imposed since 9-11 are very apparent with moving TFR's popping up everywhere for all kinds of reasons, usually political. Every gathering of people can be and is so designated.

Also, there are designated areas that seldom get used. That last time I called ATC about flying through a MOA, the controller responded the area has not been used for months.

Getting back to RESTRICTED areas, be smart, stay out of them. Flying is hazardous enough without throwing that element into the brew.

David,

I agree with you as to this should be on a different forum. I have toyed with the idea of getting in contact with Paul Dye and seeing if this is maybe something that Kitplanes could get out there...even though AOPA would probably be even better. As to prohibited, the simple fact is, we DO allow some flight through the area (99.9% of the time it is Coast Guard doing SAR missions). However to do that there is a strict protocol that is used, including gettting permission prior to entering from Eastern Air Defense and verification that we are down and moored. I don't know what the answer is...I just know that, like Pierre indicated, it really is simple to avoid us and stay alive.
 
I, for one, think that all the ranting and back and forth about this is a good thing. Just look at how many views this thread has had so far - 5,000+. You?ve already done a good job of raising everyone?s awareness.

Keep up the rants ? it keeps the thread at the top of the list so more people see it. Next time I fly anywhere near Key West I?ll be sure to triple check the charts!!

Now back to your regularly scheduled rants?
 
I, for one, think that all the ranting and back and forth about this is a good thing. Just look at how many views this thread has had so far - 5,000+. You?ve already done a good job of raising everyone?s awareness.

Keep up the rants ? it keeps the thread at the top of the list so more people see it. Next time I fly anywhere near Key West I?ll be sure to triple check the charts!!

Now back to your regularly scheduled rants?

That is exactly what I was thinking. I will not forget this now and I do plan to fly in that area eventually. Make that 5000 +/- + 1.
 
Since the AIM just got mentioned, I went and looked upo the section on Restricted areas....

3-4-3. Restricted Areas

a. Restricted areas contain airspace identified by an area on the surface of the earth within which the flight of aircraft, while not wholly prohibited, is subject to restrictions. Activities within these areas must be confined because of their nature or limitations imposed upon aircraft operations that are not a part of those activities or both. Restricted areas denote the existence of unusual, often invisible, hazards to aircraft such as artillery firing, aerial gunnery, or guided missiles. Penetration of restricted areas without authorization from the using or controlling agency may be extremely hazardous to the aircraft and its occupants. Restricted areas are published in the Federal Register and constitute 14 CFR Part 73.



Seems pretty clear to me, and even a label change to Prohibited wouldn't make any difference.

Stay out unless you have specific permission...
 
What I've learned

In order of entertainment value:

"It's not about the nail in the head!" :D

>5500 hits (and counting.)



Yes, I will remember to stay South of US1 when passing Cudjoe Key
 
I think this information is appropriate for this forum although I probably won't be flying in south FL any time soon.

Also, aren't these things in other states, such as AZ, NM and TX?
 
I think this information is appropriate for this forum although I probably won't be flying in south FL any time soon.

Also, aren't these things in other states, such as AZ, NM and TX?

And, Puerto Rico (although they don't have an aerostat at the moment). A list of all the TARS sites is on the web, so I'm not telling any secrets here:

Yuma, Az
Deming, NM
Marfa, Tx
Rio Grande City, Tx
Eagle Pass, Tx
Ft. Huachuca, Az
Cudjoe Key, FL
Lajas, Puerto Rico

Rules are the same around each.
 
As a Canadian I have no voice in this discussion. I do however hope that those opposed to aerostat use will choose more appropriate ways to register their views.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canadians-moon-grounded-surveillance-balloon-1.425798

Oh no! Be expecting a visit soon.... :eek:

ice.jpg
 
My point is simply that if it can be made safer in a reasonable way, it should.
Even you most addamant critics of these intruders make occasional mistakes, all of us do. It shouldn't be fatal if something reasonable can be done to prevent it. A near miss with remedial training is much better than death.
You absolutely are prohibitted from driving into oncomming traffic, yet it happens. Seat belts & air bags reduce the injury rate. A string of flashing LEDs on the tether seems expensive until it saves a life or two.
 
My point is simply that if it can be made safer in a reasonable way, it should.
Even you most addamant critics of these intruders make occasional mistakes, all of us do. It shouldn't be fatal if something reasonable can be done to prevent it. A near miss with remedial training is much better than death.
You absolutely are prohibitted from driving into oncomming traffic, yet it happens. Seat belts & air bags reduce the injury rate. A string of flashing LEDs on the tether seems expensive until it saves a life or two.

Except when you consider that it's a string of lights that must hold up to a minimum of 25,000 tension. Then, that string needs power...there is no power going up the tether, all power is onboard. Then, that string of lights needs to be stout enough to be gathered on a drum under tension. Do you see where it's not just a simple string of lights? Many times an administrative control (in this case, the restricted airspace...which, as mentioned earlier is only a radius of 2 miles from the site) is the proper method vs. an engineering control.
 
Before The Montgolfier Brothers, nobody believed a person could go aloft in a balloon either.
Safety is always a worthy goal. I don't know what the mechanism will be, but I think you see my point.
 
Before The Montgolfier Brothers, nobody believed a person could go aloft in a balloon either.
Safety is always a worthy goal. I don't know what the mechanism will be, but I think you see my point.

Of course it is, but when you have a sign that says "Don't do X or it will hurt you" but someone does it anyhow, where does the responsibility for harm lie? I contend it's with the one who does it. Let's face it...life isn't safe...if it was, it wouldn't be fun. This is almost the same as having to warn folks to not spill coffee on themselves because it's hot. When will we get to the point where people take responsibility for their own actions? Fact of the matter here is that there is an aerostat that will greatly increase your chances of becoming dead if you don't heed the warnings. That is the facts here. All this other talk of lights, remove the aerostat, etc...is nothing more than wishful thinking. Heed the warnings and there is no safety issue...that's the bottom line and why I began this thread in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Once again our government fails us. Balloons? In this day and time? They could just park a TR3-B up there and collect all the data they want. If some dufus flies anywhere near it, it could be out of the way in the blink of an eye. :D
 
Once again our government fails us. Balloons? In this day and time? They could just park a TR3-B up there and collect all the data they want. If some dufus flies anywhere near it, it could be out of the way in the blink of an eye. :D

As I said earlier, it's about cost. Aerostats for static applications are extremely cheap (in a relative sense). There are other platforms that can do the same thing...at an increased cost. That is why aerostats are being used these days in many, many applications, including in Afghanistan. Load up a state of the art sensor on an aerostat and you basically have little operational cost while it's on station...much less expensive than Jet-A or satellite time for the same data.
 
But Ron, the TR3-B runs a zero point energy drive, No fuel cost there...
And you know I'm just kidding, right? I'm with you on this. Just fly well clear of the thing, that's the real solution.
 
But Ron, the TR3-B runs a zero point energy drive, No fuel cost there...
And you know I'm just kidding, right? I'm with you on this. Just fly well clear of the thing, that's the real solution.

Color me embarrassed :eek:. I've got it now.
 
All this other talk of lights, remove the aerostat, etc...is nothing more than wishful thinking.

I've flown around aerostats for years in Iraq and Afghanistan. I swore some had IR lights on the tether at night. After reading your posts, perhaps they were IR chem lights..? Some were definitely illuminated in some fashion.
 
Since the AIM just got mentioned, I went and looked upo the section on Restricted areas....

3-4-3. Restricted Areas

a. Restricted areas contain airspace identified by an area on the surface of the earth within which the flight of aircraft, while not wholly prohibited, is subject to restrictions. Activities within these areas must be confined because of their nature or limitations imposed upon aircraft operations that are not a part of those activities or both. Restricted areas denote the existence of unusual, often invisible, hazards to aircraft such as artillery firing, aerial gunnery, or guided missiles. Penetration of restricted areas without authorization from the using or controlling agency may be extremely hazardous to the aircraft and its occupants. Restricted areas are published in the Federal Register and constitute 14 CFR Part 73.


Seems pretty clear to me, and even a label change to Prohibited wouldn't make any difference.

Stay out unless you have specific permission...

The AIM is informational only, the FAR's are Regulations.

However, FAR PART 73—SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE, Subpart B—Restricted Areas[url] does cover it.

[Here's the[URL="http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=68d1c32c35d7e288ecd0ba36a3429024&n=14y2.0.1.2.7.2&r=SUBPART&ty=HTML"] link to FAR PART 73 Subpart B
. /a moderator]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The AIM is informational only, the FAR's are Regulations.

I doubt this is what you meant to imply, but that statement makes it sound as if the AIM can be discounted because it is not regulation. The sad thing is, I've run into people who have exactly that perception or worse. And the FARs were quoted earlier in the thread.
 
is it a single cable that tethers it or is it multiple cables? If its a single cable, how do you keep it in a two mile ring at 14k with the wind trying to blow it down wind?

bob burns
RV-4 N82RB
 
is it a single cable that tethers it or is it multiple cables? If its a single cable, how do you keep it in a two mile ring at 14k with the wind trying to blow it down wind?

bob burns
RV-4 N82RB

Not a cable, a rope...plastic encased, but still a rope. There is enough tension on it when flying that it isn't outside of the 2 mile radius...not even 10% of that. The catenary may be, at times 1000 ft or so from the center of the launch pad, but that's about max.
 
What strength of wind will the aerostat tolerate before it blows too far downrange? The winds at 14K feet must be significant at times.
 
One purpose - is it keeps lots of federal agencies busy. Not sure it's keeping the drugs out of the US.

just legalize it all, already! geeze and let people get on with their lives. Take the billions and spend them somewhere where it'll do some good.
 
Once again our government fails us. Balloons? In this day and time? They could just park a TR3-B up there and collect all the data they want. If some dufus flies anywhere near it, it could be out of the way in the blink of an eye. :D

I don't know about that. That 2-litre straight four takes over 10 seconds to get to 60mph.
 
What strength of wind will the aerostat tolerate before it blows too far downrange? The winds at 14K feet must be significant at times.

It doesn't have a wind that will blow it too far downrange. There are wind levels and weather conditions that we don't fly in. I'd prefer to not post those here...hope you understand that.
 
Ron,

I admire your patients and persistence on this subject of keeping everyone safe by making them aware of the dangers of flying illegally thru Restricted airspace.:)

Curtis
 
What I find very fascinating about this sitting far away in England ... To me it is very simple .. and I have no idea what this thing even do !! In the huge land you have you .. one small “circle” is a no fly zone .. i.e. not a good place to fly .. just stay away ... Sounds easy to me ... But I digress .. My point is that so many people are posting on this subject .. so the RV kits sold today must be so easy to build that people no longer have technical issues to talk about !

Have a good weekend !
 
Well said Jan, this thread has more than run its course.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top