Oh, one other thing. I was complaining to my daughter about the FAA rules.
She is a private pilot and works for the Cirrus aircraft co. She listened to my complaints and said that she has been flying at altitude (I don't remember what altitude), and has flown by a drone at her altitude. Clearly there is a problem to be solved. I can only hope for some relief for LOS pilots.
Andy.
How would a transponder fix that? I have a buddy that is a C-130 instructor pilot and he has tales of drone strikes and laser strikes.
Both are probably punk kids who dont realize the lives and high value equipmemt at risk or people with nefarious intentions that dont care.
Thing is, there are already rules against that, and I would bet that 99.9% of near miss incidents are currently a result of illegal drone operation.
Don't get me wrong, it would be a blast in my night fury to climb up and "intercept" a helicopter or a cessna and follow it a couple of miles before returning home. I just cant and know the potential danger, so I wont.
So I guess my point is, the people who already knowingly break 400 feet and go play in "real" air traffic probably wont install said transponder or will disable or alter it to feign compliance.
Now if they were to say for instance "if you want to operate your craft over 400 feet or beyond LOS you need a transponder" that would be different. But that isnt what they are saying. Actually, a transponder seems like a great way to get in trouble for accidentally breaking 400 feet.
Now if there were some type of self enforcement like HAMs do, that would be different, but I dont see how that is applicable, and I dont see my self karening out other enthisiasts unless they are just being obnoxious idiots.