U.S. Appeals Court Upholds FAA Remote ID Rules

[GFields]

Race Day Quads argued that the FAA's justification for remote ID on grounds of national security was bogus as evidenced in part by the FAA's apparent lack of concern over airplanes which can fly in large areas of the country with no ADS-B. Many people believe that airplanes pose far more significant risk and should be tracked more closely than a 251 gram drone with a 20 minute flight time. Mike asked the question in this thread:

I thought this was good question. I gave my answer and Jim graciously corrected me by explaining that all airplanes are supposed to broadcast ADS-B even in Class G airspace but that many thousands of older planes are "grandfathered" and do not. He also explained the potentially high cost of retrofit which may explain the FAA's leniency.

My understanding is that there is no shutting off remote ID at UAV pilot discretion. I just wanted to know if airplane pilots can turn off ADS-B with a switch at their discretion. I am thinking that yes they probably can but I figured Jim would know.

You can start a conversation to ask off-topic questions.

 

[dirkclod]

Ok guys seversl post have been deleted. Let’s stay on the OP’s
topic.
Thank you.
dc

 

[drakkor]

I think that the remote ID is a good thing BUT having the signal being available to anyone with the right software is a bad idea. I don't need some whack job tracking me down because they don't like drones just so they can cause trouble. Any Karen out there would have a field day.

Instead I think the signal should be encrypted and only authorized people such as law enforcement as such should have the "key" to decrypt and read the ID locations. There is absolutely no need for the general public to have the ability to track you. Law enforcement encrypts their radio traffic so Joe public can't listen in which keeps the police safe. The same should apply to us flyers.

I agree with you on this. It's already implemented with license plates. Mr everybody cannot (at least easily) find out where someone lives using their license plate (which is good). Only cops & DMV have access to this information. Should be the same for drone remote IDs.

 

[dirkclod]

I agree with you on this. It's already implemented with license plates. Mr everybody cannot (at least easily) find out where someone lives using their license plate (which is good). Only cops & DMV have access to this information. Should be the same for drone remote IDs.

Agree. Glad I’m ex LE Ya know connections. .
But I don’t care where I’m at there is only a few droners and we
do fly at times at the same time . Would be nice knowing when
others are where they are at in the air. Nice living in a small town

 

[lookout]

FAA Just Won the Remote ID Case…Thank You, Next?

On July 29, more than a year after RaceDayQuads’ co-founder and CEO Tyler Brennan filed RaceDayQuads (RDQ) v. FAA to challenge the legality of the Federal Avi

insideunmannedsystems.com

RDQ can still request a rehearing within 45 days of the ruling if they find something with substance to rebuke.

There is no search involved yet they need a device to find/identify it.

 

[jaswalt]

I definitely agree with you 100%. However, Your example is not realistic. I really think its an overreaction to think "Karens" actually have that ability to track you down JUST to chastise you while having ZERO authority. Most Karens are blowhards and have NO knowledge whatsoever of whatever the laws are that they are antagonizing you with. Just saying... THESE are the people you give that piece of paper to that has the federal laws all over it. The one thats on this forum that people are discussing right now... This a perfect situation to inform someone that they are breaking federal aviation laws. i dunno... just saying

I think you clearly underestimate the irrationality of karens. Someone IS going to run into one of the most irrational ones and their life will be filled with misery.

 

[jaswalt]

You are correct, sir. I just wanted to shine light on the fact that its really not something to be afraid of...You mentioned one single person in a country that houses 329.5 million people. Your odds might have been better buying that lotto ticket last night... You are correct in being proactive but i don't think Karens are a legit reason to be against a law that does NOTHING except keep people safe from MORONS.

A lot of us are completely for the law, just not for the general public having unfettered access to the open access to our information. There are too many of Karens out there to not be concerned to some extent. Some of them are borderline evil. Many are full-blown mental. All are full-blown busybody.

 

[jaswalt]

And of course I was referring to Remote ID NOT RFID. I have NO idea how that flipped synapse occurred.

Blame auto-INcorrect. That's what I do.

 

[lookout]

A lot of us are completely for the law, just not for the general public having unfettered access to the open access to our information. There are too many of Karens out there to not be concerned to some extent. Some of them are borderline evil. Many are full-blown mental. All are full-blown busybody.

We've encountered some of these karens already and well before RID came along. Some of them were born with built in quad scanners. They won't be needing RID to do their job.

 

[Chip]

FAA Just Won the Remote ID Case…Thank You, Next?

On July 29, more than a year after RaceDayQuads’ co-founder and CEO Tyler Brennan filed RaceDayQuads (RDQ) v. FAA to challenge the legality of the Federal Avi

insideunmannedsystems.com

RDQ can still request a rehearing within 45 days of the ruling if they find something with substance to rebuke.

There is no search involved yet they need a device to find/identify it.

I assume any rehearing is a long shot because the 3-0 decision was actually a very narrow ruling which turned on the almost absurd level of deference the court must give to the federal agency when reviewing a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a regulation. Basically, the agency wins at this stage if the court can imagine a single scenario or circumstance in which the regulation could be constitutional as it is written. The decision leaves wide open the possibility of challenging the regulation or remote ID as it may actually be used, implemented, or applied by the FAA or any other governmental actor in the future.

 

[dirkclod]

I assume any rehearing is a long shot because the 3-0 decision was actually a very narrow ruling which turned on the almost absurd level of deference the court must give to the federal agency when reviewing a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a regulation. Basically, the agency wins at this stage if the court can imagine a single scenario or circumstance in which the regulation could be constitutional as it is written. The decision leaves wide open the possibility of challenging the regulation or remote ID as it may actually be used, implemented, or applied by the FAA or any other governmental actor in the future.

I agree. It’s coming and might stop complaining about it. Out of 15 forums we have this is the only one I see all this complaining and mod in 12. Don’t know why this forum is so verbal about it. amazes me.

 

[lookout]

Somebody knows something we don't?

So at the current time you can fly without remote ID at a FRIA (which none have been defined)

Or use a remote ID (which hasn't been defined) at a CBO (which also hasn't been defined).

But in the mean time you can just happily fly what you have now for about another year fat, sassy and happy.

Got it, clear as mud.

 

[lookout]

I assume any rehearing is a long shot because the 3-0 decision was actually a very narrow ruling which turned on the almost absurd level of deference the court must give to the federal agency when reviewing a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a regulation. Basically, the agency wins at this stage if the court can imagine a single scenario or circumstance in which the regulation could be constitutional as it is written. The decision leaves wide open the possibility of challenging the regulation or remote ID as it may actually be used, implemented, or applied by the FAA or any other governmental actor in the future.

The article also stated that there were still some questions left unanswered.

 

[Chip]

The article also stated that there were still some questions left unanswered.

Yes, that Dawn Zoldi article you linked is very good. She gives good summary and lists several key issues remaining including:

• When would law enforcement need a warrant to correlate MEs and FAA data? Under what circumstances could a drone pilot establish that application of the RID Rule would amount to an unconstitutional privacy deprivation?
• Does the “special needs” exception to the warrant requirement apply? The court did not address this because they found that remote ID would not necessarily constitute a search (this is the argument that government has "special need" to protect the public from 251 gram+ drones which all pose national security threat)
• What about avigation rights? Despite spending significant time on this issue during oral arguments, the judges failed to address it.

"Avigation rights" is referring to air rights, or the right of drone pilots to fly over private property at any altitude.

Dawn Zoldi also makes the point that the FAA now has many more regulations to create to actually implement anything. So, we know that something is coming but we do not know the critical details.

 

[lookout]

Yes, that Dawn Zoldi article you linked is very good. She gives good summary and lists several key issues remaining including:

• When would law enforcement need a warrant to correlate MEs and FAA data? Under what circumstances could a drone pilot establish that application of the RID Rule would amount to an unconstitutional privacy deprivation?
• Does the “special needs” exception to the warrant requirement apply? The court did not address this because they found that remote ID would not necessarily constitute a search (this is the argument that government has "special need" to protect the public from 251 gram+ drones which all pose national security threat)
• What about avigation rights? Despite spending significant time on this issue during oral arguments, the judges failed to address it.

"Avigation rights" is referring to air rights, or the right of drone pilots to fly over private property at any altitude.

Dawn Zoldi also makes the point that the FAA now has many more regulations to create to actually implement anything. So, we know that something is coming but we do not know the critical details.

We know that something doesn't wash with reality or the reasons behind it. Seems like the reasoning has another agenda in mind.

 

[djwak59]

We know that something doesn't wash with reality or the reasons behind it. Seems like the reasoning has another agenda in mind.

Let me say first off, I’m not new to drone flying, but I AM a new MA2 owner and I’m NOT used to having to deal with “drone police” and a million rules, that now apparently, look to be changing monthly. HOW are people supposed to get any enjoyment from flying anymore ?? I don’t fly to make money, I’m not a professional photographer, or in real estate, or surveyor. I just wanna see the sights and maybe take a snapshot or 2 to remember it by.

 

[jaswalt]

We've encountered some of these karens already and well before RID came along. Some of them were born with built in quad scanners. They won't be needing RID to do their job.

That's 100% true, but this opens the door for even more of them. We don't need to increase the Karen pool. This will empower even more people to know the exact point of the operator, taking what little guesswork there is out of the equation. I can already see someone seeing a drone and grabbing their phone to see exactly where the operator is. What might have been a deterrent to some of the lazier Karens--having to drive around to find the operator--is now a sure thing (or will be once implemented).

Anonymity is already a thing with vehicle license plates, and for good reason. The authorities understand that the average citizen should not be able to track down a person so easily, and so require an official of some sort to handle that information. Like with license plates, the only thing the average public should be able to see is a registration number. Then, again, like a license plate number, they would have to give that number to someone official and let that official make contact. The official could enter that number into their system and get all the pertinent info about the pilot, including current location and flight status. The way it's currently suggested to work allows people to know all about your precise location, and that's not necessary.

 

[dronerdave]

I’m hearing so much hearsay about RID I don’t know what is really going to happen.

From my understanding all I’ll need is a RID module (or compliant RC aircraft) that will transmit where the RC aircraft took off from and where it travels. Unlike the YouTube nerds who claim you will need a new controller, I’ve yet to see any truth to that, just that the ID transmission module monitors your aircraft from takeoff to landing. Sure, it will show where you took off from and that might be an issue, but that isn’t much different that standing out in the public holding an RC radio transmitter. Also, I haven’t found anything that states that RID will supply the public private information such as a person name, phone number or address as part of the RID transmission. So, if some John or Jane Doe come complaining, I’ll just tell them "call the police, they have all my information".

If this is true, I don’t have an issue with RID other than the cost and hassle of using the module. I’d actually think RID will help law enforcement be able to verify if your flight was in compliance. I hear so many people complaining about a drone directly or closely hovering and spying on them when it isn't. I’d think RID would put this to rest…unless you are actually flying out of compliance. Even at that, my guess is (and I can be wrong) that public complaints might become a nuisance call for police departments, and unless an injury or property damage occurs, tracking down a drone pilot, even one flying out of compliance will be largely ignored. On the other hand if some idiot drops a RC aircraft on my family or property and it causes an injury and/or damage, I sure want LE to be able to find who is responsible and I'd want that proof in court if it came to that.

But heck I could be wrong and as I’ve said in many of these threads, I’ll wait and see what actually happens.

 

[Dpixtion]

I’ve been thinking more about this the last few weeks the one question I have and maybe someone here knows the answer…. As most of us are well aware the general public does not know the FAA rules, as such would they even know anything about remote ID and where to find the app or a place online to track me while I am flying? it’s obvious that many of the general public that don’t know the rules would not know about the remote ID..

That being said I also wish the FAA would come out with a PSA on TV indicating that you’re not allowed to shoot at drones you’re not allowed to approach a remote pilot and disturb them while the drones are in flight and some basic information they can give out in a 30 sec. commercial.. because as we know the general public is not going to go to the FAA website or Pilot Institute and learn these rules.

 

[Rangerider]

I’m hearing so much hearsay about RID I don’t know what is really going to happen.

From my understanding all I’ll need is a RID module (or compliant RC aircraft) that will transmit where the RC aircraft took off from and where it travels. Unlike the YouTube nerds who claim you will need a new controller, I’ve yet to see any truth to that, just that the ID transmission module monitors your aircraft from takeoff to landing. Sure, it will show where you took off from and that might be an issue, but that isn’t much different that standing out in the public holding an RC radio transmitter. Also, I haven’t found anything that states that RID will supply the public private information such as a person name, phone number or address as part of the RID transmission. So, if some John or Jane Doe come complaining, I’ll just tell them "call the police, they have all my information".

If this is true, I don’t have an issue with RID other than the cost and hassle of using the module. I’d actually think RID will help law enforcement be able to verify if your flight was in compliance. I hear so many people complaining about a drone directly or closely hovering and spying on them when it isn't. I’d think RID would put this to rest…unless you are actually flying out of compliance. Even at that, my guess is (and I can be wrong) that public complaints might become a nuisance call for police departments, and unless an injury or property damage occurs, tracking down a drone pilot, even one flying out of compliance will be largely ignored. On the other hand if some idiot drops a RC aircraft on my family or property and it causes an injury and/or damage, I sure want LE to be able to find who is responsible and I'd want that proof in court if it came to that.

But heck I could be wrong and as I’ve said in many of these threads, I’ll wait and see what actually happens.

Yeah the police state advances relentlessly doesn't it? This fits into the category of thinking like "if you have nothing to hide then you shouldn't mind the surveillance" doesn't it? So why not live in a glass house?