AviationBanter - View Single Post

Larry Dighera · January 15th 06, 06:29 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.piloting

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 17:54:49 GMT, (Ron Lee)
wrote in ::

Larry Dighera wrote:

All you really have to do is make a rule that if you're going to fly
in the areas where UAV's are operating, you have to have a working
mode C or S transponder that's been checked in the last year, no
exceptions. My personal, non-business, non proprietary guess is that
will be included when the rules finally get through the system. Once
you have that data, collision avoidance is much simpler.

So you're suggesting that the FAA should reconfigure the NAS to
accommodate domestic UAV operations below 18,000' and pass the cost
and consequences of doing that on to aircraft owners? How about if
the UAV industry _FUNDS_ the changes they desire; wouldn't that be
more equitable?

You need a transponder operating above 10,000' MSL anyway

I don't believe that altitude is where the Bush administration wants
to operate the border patrol UAVs.

and there are already accuracy checks required (Biannually). No additional
costs to me as a pilot.

So you're suggesting, that what's good for you is good for the nation?

Where is the up-side of domestic UAV operations? Why should the
American public be so eager to change an already overburdened NAS to
accommodate domestic UAV operations? How do domestic UAV operations
provide a benefit to the American public? Of is it about increasing
economic prosperity for the UAV industry?

What is burdened about the areas we are talking about? What real
impact does it have to any pilot?

I see UAVs as combat/spy aircraft with NO ACCOUNTABILITY to those over
whom they fly nor those with whom they share airspace. Is a sky full
of UAVs armed with Hellfire missiles and surveillance technology the
future we want for our children? What am I missing?

As with most liberals, you are missing reality. There are peple who
want to kill those precious children you speak of.

You may characterize me as a liberal (whatever that means), but I
prefer to be seen as one who is willing to speak out in defense of the
principles the founding fathers of our noble nation saw fit to include
when they drafted its Constitution. After decades of oppression,
freedom from government intrusion was foremost in their minds. And
because of their foresight, we have largely been spared (with the
notable exception of J. Edger Hoover and Nixon) governmental invasion
of privacy to the point where we almost beg for it. It's a sad day
indeed when the President of the United States illegally spies on the
people of this nation (among other transgressions), and we are so
unaware of the danger, that we emulate the blithe indifference of a
chicken being gently stroked by the cook as he slits its throat.

Anf you.

Is that a sentence?

And me.
Our borders need to be defended and if UAVs provide a vital place in
that process then so be it.

I agree, that our borders should be secure from undocumented
immigration. I not aware of any need to DEFEND the nation's borders.
I fail to see how UAVs can be construed as the sole and most cost
effective method of border patrol.

I have yet to see where there is a real
and significant impact to pilots as we see with the DC area ADIZ.

Thankfully, your lack of vision is not shared by all who fly. The
time to act is before the precedent is established, not after the fact
when onerous occurrences are proliferating.