Would you support a lawsuit over Remote ID?

[anotherlab]

49 U.S. Code § 46504. Interference with flight crew members and attendants​

An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.  However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

Operative phrase: on an aircraft

Where is this law specifically referenced in the Final Rule document? The closest thing that I found is this text on page 121:

As noted previously, though the FAA acknowledges the concerns expressed by commenters regarding personal safety and the marginal risk created by broadcasting a control station’s location, the FAA emphasizes that there are statutory prohibitions against interfering with an aircraft. Additionally, there are local, State, and Federal laws against assault, theft, and other crimes.

You could probably apply 18 U.S. Code § 32 - Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities if someone smashes a drone. There's no requirement that the perpetrator is aboard the aircraft. If a pilot is attacked by someone, existing laws would cover that.

 

[brett8883]

I thought only fixed wing would qualify as an ultralight. A helicopter, ultralight or not I'm sure would not be easy to fly and could just drop rather than glide and so should require some sort of certification of competence to fly.

But you are right. Seems silly a MAS no matter how light that is allowed over 400ft would not need any qualifications yet a drone less than 55lb would require all this. OK, 55lb is heavy. Perhaps lighten up for UAS under 5lb.

Yea definitely terrible idea to fly one without any training. I guess helicopters will autogyro down if you have engine failure but still have to know what you are doing.

 

[Chip]

Where is this law specifically referenced in the Final Rule document? The closest thing that I found is this text on page 121:


You could probably apply 18 U.S. Code § 32 - Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities if someone smashes a drone. There's no requirement that the perpetrator is aboard the aircraft. If a pilot is attacked by someone, existing laws would cover that.

I have not yet read the whole document so not positive but my assumption is that a federal regulation or "final rule" is not required to reference any federal statute which has only collateral relevance so I would not expect to see it there.

You are right though that 18 U.S. Code § 32 - Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities is the other federal statute that may potentially apply to someone destroying drone or assaulting pilot. I did a quick forum search and discovered this has been discussed a few times before since 2018!

Some say drones have no external doors and so cannot be "aircraft in flight" while other say drones are defined as "aircraft" so law must apply. I have excerpted the "definitions" from part of the relevant statute below. Not sure where I land on this one yet but what do you think?

49 U.S. Code § 46501. Definitions

49 U.S. Code § 46501 - Definitions

www.law.cornell.edu

(1)“aircraft in flight” means an aircraft from the moment all external doors are closed following boarding—

(A)through the moment when one external door is opened to allow passengers to leave the aircraft; or
(B)until, if a forced landing, competent authorities take over responsibility for the aircraft and individuals and property on the aircraft.

(2)“special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States” includes any of the following aircraft in flight:
(A)a civil aircraft of the United States.
(B)an aircraft of the armed forces of the United States.
(C)another aircraft in the United States.
(D)another aircraft outside the United States...

 

[anotherlab]

My personal take is that citing specific laws that were not specified by the FAA as arguments to any action being implemented by the FAA will not help any potential lawsuit. It just provides an easy point for their counsel to shoot down.

If someone attacks a drone pilot or damages their drone, there are plenty of laws on the books now for that. What the FAA could do is implement a law that specifically protects drone pilots from assault. It's not needed by the FAA to make RID "legal", it just gives us some added legal protection.

 

[brett8883]

My personal take is that citing specific laws that were not specified by the FAA as arguments to any action being implemented by the FAA will not help any potential lawsuit. It just provides an easy point for their counsel to shoot down.

If someone attacks a drone pilot or damages their drone, there are plenty of laws on the books now for that. What the FAA could do is implement a law that specifically protects drone pilots from assault. It's not needed by the FAA to make RID "legal", it just gives us some added legal protection.

It doesn’t matter. The FAA has no interest in protecting drones or drone pilots.

Take the 2015 incident in Kentucky where a neighbor shot down a guys drone. The FAA refused to enforce the laws on the books and refused bring charges against the shooter which also blocked the pilot from pursuing civil damages. A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit against the shooter because only the FAA has jurisdiction. We FAA refuses to protect us.

Judge dismisses federal lawsuit filed by man whose drone was shot down by Bullitt County resident

In July 2015, John David Boggs was flying his drone over the Hillview home of 47-year-old William Merideth, when Merideth says he shot the drone down with a shotgun.

www.wdrb.com

 

[anotherlab]

It doesn’t matter. The FAA has no interest in protecting drones or drone pilots.

Take the 2015 incident in Kentucky where a neighbor shot down a guys drone. The FAA refused to enforce the laws on the books and refused bring charges against the shooter which also blocked the pilot from pursuing civil damages. A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit against the shooter because only the FAA has jurisdiction. We FAA refuses to protect us.

Judge dismisses federal lawsuit filed by man whose drone was shot down by Bullitt County resident

In July 2015, John David Boggs was flying his drone over the Hillview home of 47-year-old William Merideth, when Merideth says he shot the drone down with a shotgun.

www.wdrb.com

There are two separate issues here. Attacks on the drone, and attacks on the pilot. An attack on the pilot is assault and there are statutes that cover that. FAA regulations are not needed here.

Shooting down the drone is a different story and really isn't impacted too much by the addition of the Remote ID rules. The victim should have appealed the verdict, the District Court judge was wrong. But with the additional costs of the appeal, at some point, you have to let it go.

Also, 2015 was a long time ago in terms of drone usage. Has anything like that happened within the last two years?

 

[brett8883]

There are two separate issues here. Attacks on the drone, and attacks on the pilot. An attack on the pilot is assault and there are statutes that cover that. FAA regulations are not needed here.

It’s not the statutes about assault at issue it’s that FAA regulations are making it much easier for a pilot to be assaulted. You may live in a place where this seems far fetched but at this moment I am doing a job in down town St. Louis, MO. Once this rule goes into effect I’d be an idiot to take a job here. Might as well announce on a loud speaker there’s an easy payday down off Wash ave.

Shooting down the drone is a different story and really isn't impacted too much by the addition of the Remote ID rules.

Well telling everybody and anybody where your drone is in real time certainly doesn’t make it harder to shoot down said drone.

Also, 2015 was a long time ago in terms of drone usage. Has anything like that happened within the last two years?

I don’t know if there’s actually been one taken down in the last 2 years, I have to imagine unless it’s with a shot gun it would actually be pretty difficult, but things like this happen all the time

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[DanMan32]

There are two separate issues here. Attacks on the drone, and attacks on the pilot. An attack on the pilot is assault and there are statutes that cover that. FAA regulations are not needed here.

Shooting down the drone is a different story and really isn't impacted too much by the addition of the Remote ID rules. The victim should have appealed the verdict, the District Court judge was wrong. But with the additional costs of the appeal, at some point, you have to let it go.

Also, 2015 was a long time ago in terms of drone usage. Has anything like that happened within the last two years?

I agree the judge was wrong. FAA aircraft protection shouldn't negate any other laws about protection of property, civil or criminal, only add to it.

 

[Chip]

My personal take is that citing specific laws that were not specified by the FAA as arguments to any action being implemented by the FAA will not help any potential lawsuit. It just provides an easy point for their counsel to shoot down.

If someone attacks a drone pilot or damages their drone, there are plenty of laws on the books now for that. What the FAA could do is implement a law that specifically protects drone pilots from assault. It's not needed by the FAA to make RID "legal", it just gives us some added legal protection.

My personal take is that citing specific laws that were not specified by the FAA as arguments to any action being implemented by the FAA will not help any potential lawsuit.

Yes, I understand what you mean. I was just trying to point out that federal law specially protects airplanes and their pilots from assault by third parties but nothing for drone pilots.

If someone attacks a drone pilot or damages their drone, there are plenty of laws on the books now for that.

I agree. But, then, there are also plenty of state laws on the books which already criminalize negligent or reckless use of anything including things that fly or float or are projected through the air.

 

[Chip]

It’s not the statutes about assault at issue it’s that FAA regulations are making it much easier for a pilot to be assaulted.

Yes, the FAA wants to enable the public to quickly find and confront the drone pilot in the middle of any flight anytime anywhere in the country. Why would they want that? My theory is the public broadcast element is required to get around the federal wiretapping law. As you pointed out before, the FCC went to a lot of trouble researching and drafting their August 2020 Advisory on the subject which contains very explicit warnings.

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-366222A1.pdf

 

[Chip]

This is great little Congressional research paper with a few pages on point.

Privacy: An Overview of Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/98-326.pdf

Some excerpts below:

Page 21 Shipping, Manufacturing, Distributing, Possessing or Advertising
Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communication Interception Devices

The proscriptions for possession and trafficking in wiretapping and eavesdropping devices are even more demanding than those that apply to the predicate offense itself. There are exemptions for service providers, government officials and those under contract with the government, but there is no exemption for equipment designed to be used by private individuals, lawfully but surreptitiously.

Page 14 Exemptions: Publicly Accessible Radio Communications

Radio communications which can be inadvertently heard or are intended to be heard by the public are likewise exempt. These include not only commercial broadcasts, but ship and aircraft distress signals, tone-only pagers, marine radio and citizen band radio transmissions, and interceptions necessary to identify the source of any transmission, radio or otherwise, disrupting communications satellite broadcasts.

I am struggling to understand why the need for public tracking? Is it public relations or legal issue?

 

[Chip]

BTW, lawfully but surreptitiously. Gotta love that phrase! Maybe fits someone tracking you and your drone on a cellphone without your knowledge or specific consent?

According to Webster's Third New International Dictionary, "surreptitious" means:

1. marked or accomplished by fraud or suppression of truth. 2a. executed, obtained, used, done, or attended with often clever or deft circumvention of proper standards, sanction or authority: enjoyed by stealth: clandestine. b.: of fraudulently, spurious, or unauthorized issue: made or introduced fraudulently. c. acting in secret or by stealth: doing something clandestinely: sly, stealthy.

Yeah, I think it fits!

 

[Chip]

It doesn’t matter. The FAA has no interest in protecting drones or drone pilots.

Take the 2015 incident in Kentucky where a neighbor shot down a guys drone. The FAA refused to enforce the laws on the books and refused bring charges against the shooter which also blocked the pilot from pursuing civil damages. A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit against the shooter because only the FAA has jurisdiction. We FAA refuses to protect us.

Judge dismisses federal lawsuit filed by man whose drone was shot down by Bullitt County resident

In July 2015, John David Boggs was flying his drone over the Hillview home of 47-year-old William Merideth, when Merideth says he shot the drone down with a shotgun.

www.wdrb.com

Yes, unfortunately. The FAA appears to be fighting for the right of people like the Kentucky "drone slayer," William Merideth, and everyone else with a gun and a grudge, to find and confront drone pilots.



William Meridith relaxing at home. Probably cannot wait to get the new RID app for his cellphone.

 

[anotherlab]

Yes, unfortunately. The FAA appears to be fighting for the right of people like the Kentucky "drone slayer," William Merideth, and everyone else with a gun and a grudge, to find and confront drone pilots.

View attachment 122103

William Meridith relaxing at home. Probably cannot wait to get the new RID app for his cellphone.

He fired at the drone when it was over his house. Which he would do again, with or without Remote ID. If you were flying from your property and someone came over and shot your drone, that person is violating multiple local and federal laws. It would probably legal (Castle Doctrine) in many jurisdictions to shoot him if he stepped on your property with a gun.

If the FAA encrypted the location information, this problem more or less goes away. The FAA's argument against encryption is that it places a burden on first responders. All they need is an app that can decrypt the message. They are going to need an app just to parse the message. No extra burden is being placed on someone who legitimately needs to know the location and id of the operator.

John Q. Public gets a version of that app that doesn't provide specific information. All he needs to know is how close it is to him (which he already knows by looking up) and the altitude. He gets a button to press that will report the drone. LE and/or the FAA gets that report and they can determine whether or not they need to investigate.

 

[Hercnav]

Should be treated like GA aircraft and ultralights, PPC etc. If they're VFR in class G airspace they don't need a transponder as I understand it. So why should we?

 

[maelstrom]

Should be treated like GA aircraft and ultralights, PPC etc. If they're VFR in class G airspace they don't need a transponder as I understand it. So why should we?

Probably because flying illegally in the real aviation world is not nearly the problem it is with drones.

 

[Chip]

He fired at the drone when it was over his house. Which he would do again, with or without Remote ID. If you were flying from your property and someone came over and shot your drone, that person is violating multiple local and federal laws. It would probably legal (Castle Doctrine) in many jurisdictions to shoot him if he stepped on your property with a gun.

The point I was making though is that there is good reason for drone pilots to fear being surreptitiously tracked by public or anyone with a gun and a grudge.

If the FAA encrypted the location information, this problem more or less goes away. The FAA's argument against encryption is that it places a burden on first responders. All they need is an app that can decrypt the message. They are going to need an app just to parse the message. No extra burden is being placed on someone who legitimately needs to know the location and id of the operator.

John Q. Public gets a version of that app that doesn't provide specific information. All he needs to know is how close it is to him (which he already knows by looking up) and the altitude. He gets a button to press that will report the drone. LE and/or the FAA gets that report and they can determine whether or not they need to investigate.

If the FAA encrypted the location information, this problem more or less goes away.

Yes, encryption seems like one good way to mitigate problem. I think Brett said that was all he wanted as have several others who have weighed in on this thread. What is the path to getting encryption and what are chances?

 

[Chip]

Should be treated like GA aircraft and ultralights, PPC etc. If they're VFR in class G airspace they don't need a transponder as I understand it. So why should we?

Probably because flying illegally in the real aviation world is not nearly the problem it is with drones.

Hercnac, DJI pointed out the hippocracy of aircraft pilots flying all over the place with no tracking and ADS-B optional opt outs while demanding to know whenever a drone of any size lifts off anywhere in the country. Some pilots are very concerned about their privacy, just not at all about yours.

Check out DJI's 2017 paper on Remote ID. DJI makes the point pretty well. Dropbox link is below. A few highlights from a summary regarding the advantage of encrypted or limited access signal:

“The best solution is usually the simplest,” DJI wrote in a white paper on the topic, which can be downloaded at this link. “The focus of the primary method for remote identification should be on a way for anyone concerned about a drone flight in close proximity to report an identifier number to the authorities, who would then have the tools to investigate the complaint without infringing on operator privacy.”

DJI’s proposed system for the United States would also protect the privacy of safe and responsible drone pilots, and would prevent professional drone operators from having to share proprietary information about the location and nature of their flights. Given that some drones have been targeted by gunfire and some drone pilots have been threatened with assault despite flying legally, DJI believes it is prudent to allow individual drone owners to avoid disclosing their identities to the general public.

“No other technology is subject to mandatory industry-wide tracking and recording of its use, and we strongly urge against making UAS the first such technology. The case for such an Orwellian model has not been made,” the white paper says. “A networked system provides more information than needed, to people who don’t require it, and exposes confidential business information in the process.”

The overwhelming majority of personal and professional drone pilots operate safely and responsibly. However, DJI recognizes that law enforcement and aviation regulators need to be able to identify the owners of drones that may be operating unlawfully or in highly sensitive areas. Many people who are unfamiliar with the benefits of drones will also appreciate knowing that authorities can identify their operators when necessary.

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

 

[brett8883]

The point I was making though is that there is good reason for drone pilots to fear being surreptitiously tracked by public or anyone with a gun and a grudge.

If the FAA encrypted the location information, this problem more or less goes away.

Yes, encryption seems like one good way to mitigate problem. I think Brett said that was all he wanted as have several others who have weighed in on this thread. What is the path to getting encryption and what are chances?

Yea encrypted and I’d also like some kind of protection against abuse by LE.

 

[brett8883]

He fired at the drone when it was over his house. Which he would do again, with or without Remote ID. If you were flying from your property and someone came over and shot your drone, that person is violating multiple local and federal laws. It would probably legal (Castle Doctrine) in many jurisdictions to shoot him if he stepped on your property with a gun.

If the FAA encrypted the location information, this problem more or less goes away. The FAA's argument against encryption is that it places a burden on first responders. All they need is an app that can decrypt the message. They are going to need an app just to parse the message. No extra burden is being placed on someone who legitimately needs to know the location and id of the operator.

John Q. Public gets a version of that app that doesn't provide specific information. All he needs to know is how close it is to him (which he already knows by looking up) and the altitude. He gets a button to press that will report the drone. LE and/or the FAA gets that report and they can determine whether or not they need to investigate.

Yes I could get behind that minus the button to report drones through the app. If there’s really a problem you should have to call the cops. if all any anonymous a hole has to do to is press a button and have the cops show up that’s a big problem.