DRONE IDENTIFICATION REGULATION CHALLENGED PETITION SEEKS FEDERAL COURT REVIEW OF FAR PART 89

[JTZ]

Drone identification regulation challenged

A petition seeking federal appeals court review of the new FAA regulation governing remote identification of unmanned aircraft could have significant consequences.

www.aopa.org

 

[brett8883]

Drone identification regulation challenged

A petition seeking federal appeals court review of the new FAA regulation governing remote identification of unmanned aircraft could have significant consequences.

www.aopa.org

Very cool! It’s further along than I thought! Hopefully at the very least some of the arcane parts of remoteID will be dialed back.

 

[JackL]

I feel like I should donate to this.

 

[brett8883]

I feel like I should donate to this.

RDQ v. FAA Court Case - (Challenging Remote ID!!), organized by Tyler Brennan

***Breaking!! Listen to our oral arguments in DC District Court: Click… Tyler Brennan needs your support for RDQ v. FAA Court Case - (Challenging Remote ID!!)

www.gofundme.com

 

[spsphotos]

Why bother? Just like in 2017, Congress will intervene and pass updated laws. You think the FAA is not ready for this?

 

[ckoerner]

I don’t understand what the suit is arguing against. Can someone help clarify?

Remote ID is like a license plate, right? Why is that (from the press release), “failing to comply with constitutional protections”?

I want to be more informed on this issue, but I find the argument lacking detail.

 

[brett8883]

I don’t understand what the suit is arguing against. Can someone help clarify?

Remote ID is like a license plate, right? Why is that (from the press release), “failing to comply with constitutional protections”?

I want to be more informed on this issue, but I find the argument lacking detail.

It’s not like a license plate. The registration number on your drone is like a license plate. Remote ID is like an ankle bracelet tracker that anyone and everyone can track. This is for both you and the drone.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that location data is property subject to 4th amendment protection against illegal search and seizure and requires a court order to obtain. The FAA is telling us we need to give that information not just to law enforcement without a warrant but all to any joe able to pick up the signal and with no knowledge it is being taken.

It’s akin to requiring your car to broadcast its location, speed, and heading to anyone with a phone app which no one in this country would accept.

 

[brett8883]

Why bother? Just like in 2017, Congress will intervene and pass updated laws. You think the FAA is not ready for this?

That was a little different because what the FAA was doing was against the law. The law can be changed and was. This is a constitutional question and the constitution cannot be changed so easily.

Also, the registration requirement really couldn’t be argued to be a burden. A $5 registration fee is pretty reasonable. An expensive transmitter on a cheap drone may not be.

Some people will say that Remote ID is just like ADS-B for manned aircraft but it’s not the same. ADS-B is not required in class G airspace nor below 2,500 ft AGL in class E airspace. Likely because it would be a burden for small aircraft. Why would a transmitter be a burden for small manned aircraft but not a tiny FPV drone?

You also have to consider the fact there there have only been 4 incidents involving sUAV reported the NTSB since 2010. Out of the 4, two caused minor damage to helicopters and another incident caused minor cuts to a bystander. The last incident a drone ran into a hot air balloon but caused no damage or injuries.

On the other hand in the same time period there were 2417 fatal incidents, an additional 1496 different incidents with serious injuries, and an additional 2055 incidents with minor injuries involving general aviation aircraft under Part 91 alone. There were 179 fatal incidents last year alone. Keep in mind an incident can have more than 1 death.

So the question has be asked why do sUAV require transmitters at all times and not general aviation manned aircraft?

 

[tlswift58]

Why bother? Just like in 2017, Congress will intervene and pass updated laws. You think the FAA is not ready for this?

Current Congress is too busy playing thumbsies and doling out big bucks to the contributors to care about drone people.

I'd look for a new tax on droning - much more likely from current events / news.

 

[ckoerner]

It’s not like a license plate. The registration number on your drone is like a license plate. Remote ID is like an ankle bracelet tracker that anyone and everyone can track. This is for both you and the drone.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that location data is property subject to 4th amendment protection against illegal search and seizure and requires a court order to obtain. The FAA is telling us we need to give that information not just to law enforcement without a warrant but all to any joe able to pick up the signal and with no knowledge it is being taken.

It’s akin to requiring your car to broadcast its location, speed, and heading to anyone with a phone app which no one in this country would accept.

Ah, that helps sort things for me. Much appreciated.

 

[Tomk_]

Tyler Brennan does a pretty good job of explaining the lawsuit on this video.

 

[51 Drones]

I had a great visit with Tyler Brennan, the CEO of RaceDayQuads. Tyler and his team are suing the FAA for some of the ways they went about making the final rule for Remote ID. I think they have a good case. Watch the interview to get the gist of it, and then read everything on the RDQ website for in-depth info. Let’s spread the word, because this is going to take a collaborative effort to ensure that the hobby is sustained.