So let the FAA regulate the geese ... What does operate outside of airport air space mean to you? I don't expect an Airbus to be operating at low altitudes in the majority of the inner city where crime is committed.

Let us not forget that a few eight pound geese caused the crash of the Airbus into the Hudson River. Most, if not all UAS aircraft are larger than a goose.

Why must you journalist types keep tacking on Predator photos on top of stories about SMALL UAS? You people are part of the problem of ignorance when it comes to this potentially life saving technology.

I honestly can not believe Mr. Tim Adelman understands anything about aviation other than the legal side. To even vaguely consider an idea like this is absurd. The aircraft that law enforcement want are not the little 5-10 pound model airplanes that Joe Citizen operates via line-of-site, these aircraft are as large as small manned aircraft operated via RC and camera view miles away from the operator. The airspace over every locality would be polluted with LE UAVs most likely operated by untrained pilots in every weather condition. This would certainly be a general aviation, commercial avaition, and military aviation catastrophe. If law enforcement wants to utilize airspace, then they need to follow the LAWS established by the FAA.

Whether we like or dislike the thought of UAVs out there flying around, the truth is they are coming and in a big way. They do have capabilities that a traditional aircraft and pilot do not have. Namely the ability to stay aloft for more than a day. It would be really hard for a few CAP pilots to offer that type of service. I have been involved with Predator flights and although they have amazing camera technologies - they cant see into windows - even with the IR cameras. For some reason people dont get bothered by a helicopter flying over looking for "bad guys" but somehow feel that a UAV flying around is on a spying mission. Its sort of a double standard, and its one that we will need to get over. Its estimated that after the airspace is opened up to UAVs, in 10 to 15 years the number of UAVs will equal the number of regular airplanes.

Lets see $50K up front for the drone. $100K a year (Salary + benefits) for a police or civil service pilot. Ten year fully loaded cost $1M plus maintenance and departmental insurance. A used Cessna 172 is $50K FOUR sets of FREE eyes by the civil air patrol $0. Ten year fully loaded cost $50K plus all the other costs that a UAV would have, insurance picked up by the Air Force and many young people getting valuable skills and character building. Do the math and tell the hucksters to take a hike!

The article does not state precisely what kind of vehicles Police would like to use. Smaller vehicles below $50K does not really say how far away and how high they can fly. The statement that they would be operated in close proximity with an officer may be true, but: 1) They must take off and land (or are they VTOL? Helos?) 2) What if the operator tangles with some power lines down the road he cannot see well from his/her vantage point? Your concept is feasible, surely, in some instances, but in general I think the FAA is right in requiring high standards. What may solve the impasse is clarification and differentiation between different categories of UAS.

You failed to mention the violation of civil liberties such constant surveillance would commit. Backyard privacy, indeed slant views of home interiors through windows would be constant as well. And all without probable, or even reasonable cause. We are not at war at home. National security is not at stake. Stick to a limited use of helicopters; they represent a better balance between technical law enforcement and civil liberties.