I would like to start a thread on what I see as the most pertinent
take-away from yesterday's incursion: How can the current responses be
modified to make the response more relevant to the threat, when the
inevitable occurs again and a pilot gets lost? Assuming pilots won't
get lost in the future doesn't seem very realistic (how many of us can
say that we were never lost?). And there seems to be general consensus
that the images on CNN of F-16's cavorting while the Cessna put-putted
its merry way, interspersed with shots of people fleeing the Capitol,
were faintly ridiculous and put the US in a bad light. So what's the
solution? CNN showed a red-green laser system they want to use to
signal pilots, but it's not clear how this would have addressed the
most recent incursion.

One of the issues is that there is no easy way to distinguish a 1200
sqawk from an L-4 (no, or minimum, threat) from the same squawk from a
G-4, which I think all of can agree could do significant damage.
Consequently, we adopt a one-resposne fits all policy to any incursion.
Are there any technological tricks which would help tailor the response
to the type of ariplane involved?

Hank Rausch
N8806T