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

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. Anf you. And me.
Our borders need to be defended and if UAVs provide a vital place in
that process then so be it. I have yet to see where there is a real
and significant impact to pilots as we see with the DC area ADIZ.

Ron Lee