Since I'm not a pilot or aircraft owner, I really don't have a direct interest in what if any kind of locater should be required for planes. However, like everybody else I'm a taxpayer and I wonder about the cost of conducting search and rescue operations when the downed aircraft has no locater or one that is ineffective. Most of the AOPA's concern seems to be how much it would cost aircraft owners to install or upgrade ELT to 406 MHz ELT's. What am I missing in their argument?
That ELTs are rarely used, when used they often, if not generally, don't work, and the cost to upgrade is out of proportion to the value rec'd.
But, given your hypothesis, I assume you would have no problem with the government mandating that you, and everyone else who goes out into any wilderness area, purchase and carry a PLB while hiking/camping to reduce the cost of SAR operations. It's only a few hundred bucks and think how much time, effort and money would be saved by SAR?
The fact is that there is a limit to what we, as a society and as individuals, are willing to do/spend to ameliorate the costs to us from necessary (or at least, traditional) govt. services. Drawing the line is what representative govt. is all about. Theoretically, the balance that comes from all sides looking out for their own agendas and thereby arriving at the solution will be a reasonable compromise. Theory doesn't always work, but...