The Petitioners in the Brennan v. FAA Remote ID lawsuit

[Jagerbomb52]

Posted by Brendan Schulman:

The Petitioners in the Brennan v. FAA Remote ID lawsuit have filed their final brief, and here it is. In my opinion, the argument that FAA Remote ID violates a privacy interest because low altitude airspace is actually private property (citing the Causby case) is a huge strategic blunder. If that argument is successful, it will trigger a flood of state and local regulations and prohibitions on drone use. (Because local government can regulate what is not regulated by the federal government.) Based on past experience, such regulation will be particularly problematic for recreational drone users such as the FPV community. I make no prediction as to whether the argument, or other arguments, will succeed. Oral argument is scheduled for December 15.

Reply Brief--Brennan v Dickson.pdf | Powered by Box

app.box.com

 

[sar104]

The entire premise seems like a blunder to me. Relying on that, and other arguments such as: "Special Privacy Considerations for Aircraft in the Sky do Not Apply to Drones Low to the Ground" doesn't look like a well thought out strategy.

 

[Don Testme]

Posted by Brendan Schulman:

... the argument that FAA Remote ID violates a privacy interest because low altitude airspace is actually private property (citing the Causby case) is a huge strategic blunder...

Looks like they are throwing in everything they can, including the kitchen sink. "Low altitude private property". That's insane. And yes, if it were to be deemed private property local governments would have a field day regulating it. The fact that the argument is in the suit makes me wonder what their strategy is. They must know that argument won't hold water. I wonder why it was inserted. Strange.

 

[Capt KO]

As a homeowner, I would be happy with control of airspace over my property, below the tree height. Just for privacy purposes and wouldn’t interfere with anyone’s drone flyovers. Even a minimum altitude over homes would suffice. But giving that control to cities or states would ruin it for all.

 

[tlswift58]

As a homeowner, I would be happy with control of airspace over my property, below the tree height. Just for privacy purposes and wouldn’t interfere with anyone’s drone flyovers. Even a minimum altitude over homes would suffice. But giving that control to cities or states would ruin it for all.

Many people who are homeowners DO THINK they own the airspace above their homes. I've been told that a couple of times after posting some waterfall pictures on social media. I did politely tell them they were incorrect and airspace above ground in the US is controlled by the FAA - otherwise any low flying helicopters / planes / etc would be breaking that supposed rule.

Allowing esp local governments who tend to be very heavy handed and make rules without any input to govern airspace under say 400 ft and then the FAA has it over 600 feet would be a disaster for drone pilots. You can bet there would be a very long list of cities / towns putting those restrictions into effect.

 

[Made2Phly]

Posted by Brendan Schulman:

The Petitioners in the Brennan v. FAA Remote ID lawsuit have filed their final brief, and here it is. In my opinion, the argument that FAA Remote ID violates a privacy interest because low altitude airspace is actually private property (citing the Causby case) is a huge strategic blunder. If that argument is successful, it will trigger a flood of state and local regulations and prohibitions on drone use. (Because local government can regulate what is not regulated by the federal government.) Based on past experience, such regulation will be particularly problematic for recreational drone users such as the FPV community. I make no prediction as to whether the argument, or other arguments, will succeed. Oral argument is scheduled for December 15.

Reply Brief--Brennan v Dickson.pdf | Powered by Box

app.box.com

Many people who are homeowners DO THINK they own the airspace above their homes. I've been told that a couple of times after posting some waterfall pictures on social media. I did politely tell them they were incorrect and airspace above ground in the US is controlled by the FAA - otherwise any low flying helicopters / planes / etc would be breaking that supposed rule.

Allowing esp local governments who tend to be very heavy handed and make rules without any input to govern airspace under say 400 ft and then the FAA has it over 600 feet would be a disaster for drone pilots. You can bet there would be a very long list of cities / towns putting those restrictions into effect.

I don’t have the time unfortunately, but is it too late to file an amicus brief? Is there a drone pilot organization that might be willing to do so?

 

[Smooth Rhythm]

I have a number of issues with the way JR is managing this case against the FAA. While I do have some operator/pilot safety issues with some RID provisions and hope they can be satisfied, I am generally in favor of remote ID. There's an old legal aphorism that I am sure you have heard in some fashion: “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.”

Unfortunately, I think we are seeing some of that with JR. Regardless, I am anxiously awaiting the Court’s final decision (hopefully next year) and will follow that decision.

 

[GFields]

Interesting, thanks for sharing

 

[eEridani]

I see a market for a differential GPS receiver that allows drone operators to transmit signals that offset the drone's internal location solution to something say half way around the globe. GPS signal in + offset gets sent to the IMU - offset location is sent out via RID - all parties are happy.

The drone really doesn't care if it took off at 0.0000,0.0000 or 20.0000,100.0000.

 

[maelstrom]

The drone really doesn't care if it took off at 0.0000,0.0000 or 20.0000,100.0000.

Until it comes to using the RTH function!

 

[eEridani]

Until it comes to using the RTH function!

If the drone thinks it is at 0,0 because the GPS data is tweaked - it will return to 0,0. No RTH problem whatsoever. However, the find my drone function may be unusable; and applications like AirData and FlightReader will have issues.

But then this endeavor is for the more paranoid among us and those mapping apps probably aren't being used, either.

 

[SladeSteele07]

I see a market for a differential GPS receiver that allows drone operators to transmit signals that offset the drone's internal location solution to something say half way around the globe. GPS signal in + offset gets sent to the IMU - offset location is sent out via RID - all parties are happy.

The drone really doesn't care if it took off at 0.0000,0.0000 or 20.0000,100.0000.

That's an interesting idea. Because you can spoof the GPS on your phone, why couldn't you do it on the drone?

 

[sar104]

I see a market for a differential GPS receiver that allows drone operators to transmit signals that offset the drone's internal location solution to something say half way around the globe. GPS signal in + offset gets sent to the IMU - offset location is sent out via RID - all parties are happy.

The drone really doesn't care if it took off at 0.0000,0.0000 or 20.0000,100.0000.

You are seeing a market for something completely illegal?

 

[eEridani]

You are seeing a market for something completely illegal?

As long as I don't use it myself, perfectly okay to make money off something others use for illegal purposes. Don't get me started... lol.

 

[Chaosrider]

You are seeing a market for something completely illegal?

Wouldn't be the first time in human history!



TCS

 

[Chip]

There's an old legal aphorism that I am sure you have heard in some fashion: “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell

When the law is against you then pound on the facts. When the facts are against you then pound on the law. When both facts and law are against you then pound on the table.

 

[Chip]

But this argument is at the District of Columbia Court of Appeal. The court is reviewing a federal agency regulation. One of the times and places where banging on the table is least likely to work.

They are live streaming remote oral argument on 12/15. Will be interesting to see who pounds on what.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0vcI3ebjJE1g5hNT3UmltA

 

[brett8883]

But this argument is at the District of Columbia Court of Appeal. The court is reviewing a federal agency regulation. One of the times and places where banging on the table is least likely to work.

They are live streaming remote oral argument on 12/15. Will be interesting to see who pounds on what.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0vcI3ebjJE1g5hNT3UmltA

Do you have any idea what time?

 

[Chip]

It looks like they will set time any day. I will keep checking and let you know.

 

[brett8883]

It looks like they will set time any day. I will keep checking and let you know.

Thanks!