I think that it would be more helpful to all concerned if ALL (manned) aircraft transmitted an ADS-B signal.
If 1 of the major concerns is the potential of collision or flight path or flight boundary intrusion by an UAV, then those UAV pilots (except with either nefarious intent or pure stupidity) would do what they needed to use that ADS-B signal to avoid any potential conflict of airspace.
As I recall, Xjet was working on developing a handheld portable ADS-B detector, & I look forward to seeing 1 on the market, especially 1 with some kind of locator screen as Xjet's prototype unit had.
Perhaps, the ability to receive an ADS-B signal in the UAV & enabled via a software upgrade, & the data included in the transmission back to the controller?
Another thought I also have, is that, for those in the USA at least, does anyone recall CB (Citizens Band)
radios?
At 1 point in history, a CB radio operator had to have & use FCC call signs, an FCC-issued license, & much like the Part 107 commercial UAV license, take a test & pay a fee which had to be renewed every so often.
That was similarly true for those with marine VHF radios – the FCC would issue a license, with a call sign, & it had a cost & had to be renewed every so often.
I never owned a CB radio, but in my marine business, I did have & use a VHF radio, & that license requirement was rescinded prior to my FCC marine VHF radio license expiration.
I contacted the FCC & asked if I could get a refund for the time I had left on it, & they said, NO, & were probably laughing as they wrote their reply.
Remembering that, I've since declined to get any other FCC-required licenses for any of my other radios.
Anyway, both the CB radio & marine VHF radio license requirements were dropped after some years, as both types of radios were sold & used in such numbers by those without getting their required licenses, that there was no way the FCC could keep track of, nor prosecute any violators, & they gave up.
I wouldn't be surprised if a similar relaxation from the FAA might occur with UAVs at some future point, & for very much the same reasons.
Aside from egregious, blatantly intentional violations, unless the numbers of agents &/ officers were
hugely increased, I really don't think that there's much chance of having any encounter leading to prosecution by any FAA/LEOs to errant technical UAV violators.
Realistically, lawbreakers aren't going to be paying attention to any of them anyway, & I think there's likely an attitude of “well, break 1 law, why not break the rest?”
I also think that there'll surely be some evolution in progress with the FAA regs re: UAVs, such as, for instance, currently, if a Pt.107 commercial pilot were to fly the lightest, tiniest, UAV made, & make a dime from doing it, they'd still need to go through the entire licensing & registration process.
The <250 gm class is deemed to present a minimal threat to anyone or anything, due to its light mass, hence that distinction… & nothing changes in that regard, if a Pt.107 pilot flies that same <250 gm class drone.
The discouragement to Pt.107 pilots flying that <250 gm class drone, I think, will have the unintended(?) consequence of pushing the Pt.107 pilots into flying larger, more expensive, & YES, potentially more dangerous UAVs.
Plus, a Pt.107 pilot is also having to treat, register & tag each 1 of their UAVs, regardless of their mass, or even use.
The more restrictive & Draconian that laws & regs become, the more will just decide to not comply, particularly if there's no logic, reason, or sense behind them.
I'm expecting a bunch of opprobrium, particularly from those Pt.107 pilots, likely based on the concept of “misery loves company” – “WE had to suffer through all that, so we're going to insist that all others do, too.”
For me, & what I do with & use my <250 gm UAV for, I see the Pt.107 as only a trap, a blatant control & money-grab by the FAA.
Since I purchased my UAV prior to any potential future increasingly Draconian restrictions, my attitude will be, those are
ex post facto.