Would you support a lawsuit over Remote ID?

[Chip]

Please guys.... distance ID technology is used with drones, aircraft, and even vehicle surveillance... no one is going to spend the millions of dollars that an attempt to make it a constitutional issue by taking it through several courts would cost...

Have you not heard of John Taylor? The man with no legal training who went toe to toe with the FAA in federal court and proved that its drone registration rule was as bogus as a three dollar bill in 2017.

https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/16-1302/16-1302-2018-07-06.pdf?ts=1530891075

During the court hearing, one of the judges asked the FAA counsel who stumbled over the exact phrasing of Part 336 “Where are you getting these words from? You’re just making stuff up… that’s not what the statute says.” “Your argument is very strange to read,” commented the judge. “I wouldn’t write anything like that… I’d be laughed out of the business.”

In response to the FAA’s argument that Part 48 met the FAA’s goals for both enforcement and education, and that over 700,000 drone operators had already registered, the judge was dismissive. “That’s a policy argument,” he stated. “The fact that the thing you’re doing has good effect doesn’t mean that the thing is lawful.”

Judge Tells FAA Rep: "You're Just Making Stuff Up."

Oral arguments took place last week in the case of Taylor vs. Huerta, brought by a drone operator against the FAA regarding drone registration.

dronelife.com

 

[brett8883]

Have you not heard of John Taylor? The man with no legal training who went toe to toe with the FAA in federal court and proved that its drone registration rule was as bogus as a three dollar bill in 2017.

https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/16-1302/16-1302-2018-07-06.pdf?ts=1530891075

During the court hearing, one of the judges asked the FAA counsel who stumbled over the exact phrasing of Part 336 “Where are you getting these words from? You’re just making stuff up… that’s not what the statute says.” “Your argument is very strange to read,” commented the judge. “I wouldn’t write anything like that… I’d be laughed out of the business.”

In response to the FAA’s argument that Part 48 met the FAA’s goals for both enforcement and education, and that over 700,000 drone operators had already registered, the judge was dismissive. “That’s a policy argument,” he stated. “The fact that the thing you’re doing has good effect doesn’t mean that the thing is lawful.”

Judge Tells FAA Rep: "You're Just Making Stuff Up."

Oral arguments took place last week in the case of Taylor vs. Huerta, brought by a drone operator against the FAA regarding drone registration.

dronelife.com

Love it! That’s what we need to do!

@Chip proves it’s not too big to win.

 

[Chip]

Love it! That’s what we need to do!

@Chip proves it’s not too big to win.

Brett,
Well, yes and no. There is one thing I should mention. Its true that John Taylor had no prior legal experience, researched and drafted his own briefs, and presented his own oral argument before a federal appellate panel in WA DC. He exposed and demolished the FAA's legal argument and voided the entire UAV registration process in the United States.

But it was only for a while because Congress changed the law and the FAA brought registration back fairly quickly. Perhaps more importantly, for purposes of our discussion here, as stated in the linked article, when Taylor stood up to face the two judge panel, about all he had to say was:

The FAA was in violation of Section 336 (a) when it enacted a new rule regarding model aircraft flown for recreational use.

As the reporter noted, when you’ve said that, you’ve said it all: “I’m reluctant to move on past it,” said Taylor at one point in his argument, referring to Section 336 (a). “But I don’t really know what more to say about it.”

Do you see how that is a very simple, focused attack on a single issue?

 

[anotherlab]

Have you not heard of John Taylor? The man with no legal training who went toe to toe with the FAA in federal court and proved that its drone registration rule was as bogus as a three dollar bill in 2017.

https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/16-1302/16-1302-2018-07-06.pdf?ts=1530891075

Am I missing something? In Taylor v. FAA (the decision from the link from @Chip's post), the court ruled against Taylor and denied his petition.

 

[Chip]

Am I missing something? In Taylor v. FAA (the decision from the link from @Chip's post), the court ruled against Taylor and denied his petition.

Good read and good catch. That is my mistake. I posted wrong court opinion. Let me clarify. Taylor won huge victory in 2017 just like I said when the court ruled:

The FAA’s Registration Rule violates Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act. We grant Taylor’s
petition for review of the Registration Rule, and we vacate the Registration Rule to the extent it applies to model aircraft.

The 2017 court opinion is here:

http://www.wolfenstock.com/TaylorvFAA/TaylorFAAOpinion.pdf

After that decision was published, a class action was filed against the FAA by Taylor's brother alleging damages for being illegally forced to register. That suit did fail as you correctly pointed out. Its great that you caught that because that part of story is perhaps lesson that sometimes its best to take your win and go home and not yearn for more.

An article describing this part 2 of the story is here:

Robert Taylor v. FAA- 2nd Drone Registration Class Action Lawsuit

Are you interested in learning about the class action drone registration lawsuit?

jrupprechtlaw.com

 

[brett8883]

Brett,
Well, yes and no. There is one thing I should mention. Its true that John Taylor had no prior legal experience, researched and drafted his own briefs, and presented his own oral argument before a federal appellate panel in WA DC. He exposed and demolished the FAA's legal argument and voided the entire UAV registration process in the United States.

But it was only for a while because Congress changed the law and the FAA brought registration back fairly quickly. Perhaps more importantly, for purposes of our discussion here, as stated in the linked article, when Taylor stood up to face the two judge panel, about all he had to say was:

The FAA was in violation of Section 336 (a) when it enacted a new rule regarding model aircraft flown for recreational use.

As the reporter noted, when you’ve said that, you’ve said it all: “I’m reluctant to move on past it,” said Taylor at one point in his argument, referring to Section 336 (a). “But I don’t really know what more to say about it.”

Do you see how that is a very simple, focused attack on a single issue?

For sure. I understand it’s a more complex situation no doubt but I also think this is a bigger much more objectionable issue.

 

[Roc Rat]

We don't get more freedom by surrendering our rights to fly responsively in the name of "safety"!

 

[spsphotos]

Good read and good catch. That is my mistake. I posted wrong court opinion. Let me clarify. Taylor won huge victory in 2017 just like I said when the court ruled:

The FAA’s Registration Rule violates Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act. We grant Taylor’s
petition for review of the Registration Rule, and we vacate the Registration Rule to the extent it applies to model aircraft.

The 2017 court opinion is here:

http://www.wolfenstock.com/TaylorvFAA/TaylorFAAOpinion.pdf

After that decision was published, a class action was filed against the FAA by Taylor's brother alleging damages for being illegally forced to register. That suit did fail as you correctly pointed out. Its great that you caught that because that part of story is perhaps lesson that sometimes its best to take your win and go home and not yearn for more.

An article describing this part 2 of the story is here:

Robert Taylor v. FAA- 2nd Drone Registration Class Action Lawsuit

Are you interested in learning about the class action drone registration lawsuit?

jrupprechtlaw.com

Smoke and mirrors. Not going to happen with RID. First of all, FAA learned from that so not going to happen twice. Next, as said, was remedied rather quickly so in the end, Taylor won nothing but a minor temporary reprieve. Next, sure, you can sue and you may or may not win some sort of victory (which I doubt completely), but all that will do is temporarily push it off by a few months as they fix the wording AND you may end up forcing their hand on more strict rules like NETWORK requirement that was pulled. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the approach they are taking OTHER than the broadcasting of the pilot location, which is something that really can be addressed with encryption. I see this entire thing as an overreaction and "they can't tell ME what to do" attitude. The FAA is not some tyrannical government entity out to kill the drone industry, etc. They are just trying to make the sky's safe for EVERYONE and have shown many times that they are willing to work with us. Hell, the rarely hand out fines (the Philly guy was actually the first I've seen and IMHO he deserves every penny of it), they actually try to educate rather than punish. The whole idea of a suit is waste of time and will in the end lead to nothing but wasted time and money.

 

[anotherlab]

We don't get more freedom by surrendering our rights to fly responsively in the name of "safety"!

We are not giving up the right to "fly responsively". We are giving up some privacy, the degree and access of which still needs to be addressed properly by the FAA.

People were upset when DJI geofenced the drones to keep them away from airports and other sensitive areas. We survived that, we'll survive this.

 

[Flightpro]

We may have found grounds to sue the FAA over the requirement in the new Remote ID rule to broadcast the location data of individuals to the general public and law enforcement.

To bring a lawsuit like this we would need to set up non-profits run by people whom you can all trust and raise money from the community to support it. Before we put all that work in and start asking for donations I would first like to know if the community is even interested in something enough to give money to support it.

We would obviously need to hire a lawyer to assess our standing before we could even ask for public donations but if we had a case would you be willing to chip in?

Im thinking that the Remote ID will likely bring us more privileges' both as a hobbyist and a 107.
That makes sense to me and giving my location seems to be fair in order to have that given to me.

If your going to put a license on my drone that can be scanned than I want the Freedom that should come with that.
The ability to fly far, fast , beyond line of sight and more places , if rules are broken and you get caught you pay a fine. very similar to driving a car , after so many strikes your grounded.

If it goes the other way and they put hand cuffs on my drone on every flight than there might be a rising , but it needs to play out , its just to soon to fight when we dont know what they are going to do or allow or change so this is what I hope for .

Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly in and out of the storm.

I’m with you on this one to a great degree. Remote ID broadcast should be available to other licensed broadcasters and FAA only. Or the FAA only. I don’t need or want some crackhead getting a hair brained scheme to track me, my drone or any ground equipment I use. Even local police officers ought to be required to go through part 107 certificate training specifically for law enforcement to be allowed to track for law enforcement purposes. They should have to attend an FAA law enforcement part 107 with recurrent upgrade with an in depth aeronautics/airspace law focus. An FAA commissioned remote atc if you will. If it’s used as a safety feature only, it’s good. Otherwise it opens up a can of worms for those who have no understanding of the law and no regard for the safety of the drone pilot sector. There are many categories of people in this world who may gain access to the current proposed system for nefarious reasons. At this point I would be willing to support a no monetary gains type class action lawsuit that was specified as a general lawsuit or a public sector proposed amendment bill to help protect the FAA from preventable liability and Rec/107 pilots alike from being victimized. It’s easy to impose an unknown infringement of safety from behind the safety of a post 9/11 airport somewhere. The USA is a vast and culturally diverse complexity of local issues and freedom alike and that should be taken into account anytime the FAA imposes something such as broadcast information availability.

 

[Mike Mas]

Most owners would but you'll be fighting the government with a government run court is fruitless!

All the other side has to say is a drone could bring down a commercial flight and kill 300-400 people, and its case closed for us. I've had my AMA license and flown drones before their inception but now have to be punished for a some goofy Youtuber's trying to impress other idiots.

Regards

 

[anotherlab]

Most owners would but you'll be fighting the government with a government run court is fruitless!

All the other side has to say is a drone could bring down a commercial flight and kill 300-400 people, and its case closed for us. I've had my AMA license and flown drones before their inception but now have to be punished for a some goofy Youtuber's trying to impress other idiots.

Regards

They don't even have to say that, geofencing restrictions would mostly prevent a drone from hitting a commercial passenger jet. It's situations like where a medivac helicopter responding to an accident, or a helicopter participating in a SAR operation are blocked from approaching because some idiot is flying his drone trying to get a closer look.

 

[chadCO]

I am quite happy to put money into a lawsuit against a rogue useless agency... the FAA proved they weren't legit when the first Boeing airliner crashed.... they proved they were traitors when the second one crashed.

 

[Tolipa]

To be clear this is about broadcasting location data to the general public and law enforcement about the pilot’s location without a warrant not Remote ID in general.

The premise of the lawsuit revolves around the 2018 Supreme Court decision that says location data is personal property protected under the 4th amendment against illegal search and seizure. The goal of the lawsuit is to prevent this data from being accessed without a warrant by anyone and everyone. LE would still be able to obtain the data with a warrant they just wouldn’t be able to harass pilots who are obeying the law. Violators would still be brought to justice.

All aircraft flying do the same thing, and you can look up their location on multiple apps, however they are way beyond the reach of the general public.

As a pilot I always was required to "squawk" my ident. I don't see the difference. I believe if there is not some way to ensure that every drone flying can be identified while airborne, it is only a matter of time before some yahoo (look him up on youtube) brings down an aircraft. I would be resistant to letting the general public access that data for many reasons, but ultimately I would hope that reasonable regulation would relax some of the requirements we are made to follow.

Wouldn't it be great if we could fly higher than 400 feet? How about out of line of sight? I would encourage a higher grade of license for pilots that met additional knowledge requirements and who could then be monitored via remote id for compliance. If some unlicensed pilot tried to fly above his license grade and could be immediately identified it would be less likely to happen.

When I got my instrument rating I was granted access to the finest regulated aviation system in the world, but I had to fly by the rules and I certainly had a unique identifier.
However, giving the general public access to id data is a deal breaker for me and I would resist that requirement vigorously.
JMHO

 

[Flightpro]

They don't even have to say that, geofencing restrictions would mostly prevent a drone from hitting a commercial passenger jet. It's situations like where a medivac helicopter responding to an accident, or a helicopter participating in a SAR operation are blocked from approaching because some idiot is flying his drone trying to get a closer look.

Technically speaking, geofencing helicopters and other manned craft could place a “flight controlled force field” situation around helicopters. We’re living in 2021. Not 1979.

 

[Flightpro]

All aircraft flying do the same thing, and you can look up their location on multiple apps, however they are way beyond the reach of the general public.

As a pilot I always was required to "squawk" my ident. I don't see the difference. I believe if there is not some way to ensure that every drone flying can be identified while airborne, it is only a matter of time before some yahoo (look him up on youtube) brings down an aircraft. I would be resistant to letting the general public access that data for many reasons, but ultimately I would hope that reasonable regulation would relax some of the requirements we are made to follow.

Wouldn't it be great if we could fly higher than 400 feet? How about out of line of sight? I would encourage a higher grade of license for pilots that met additional knowledge requirements and who could then be monitored via remote id for compliance. If some unlicensed pilot tried to fly above his license grade and could be immediately identified it would be less likely to happen.

When I got my instrument rating I was granted access to the finest regulated aviation system in the world, but I had to fly by the rules and I certainly had a unique identifier.
However, giving the general public access to id data is a deal breaker for me and I would resist that requirement vigorously.
JMHO

Well said, Sir!

 

[DanMan32]

Technically speaking, geofencing helicopters and other manned craft could place a “flight controlled force field” situation around helicopters. We’re living in 2021. Not 1979.

That sounds great, but even in 2021 that would be difficult to mandate, possibly even implement. DJI's fencing doesn't get updated instantly that we're blessed they fence TSRs, if known far enough in advance. There's only one of their consumer models that has ADS-B and it doesn't report altitude, and many manned aircraft don't transmit ADS-B as I have discovered trying to figure out from FR24 how low some planes are going over my house.

Perhaps we can begin to implement that eventually all will have the ability but too soon to mandate.

 

[MROJAS]

Maybe Im lost, but exactly how do you think that FAA is going to use this against us . Give me a exact idea of where the fear is coming from ? A scenario would be best for me to make sense of this and maybe others.

Im sitting on my deck and flying my drone what happens ?
Are you trying to say that someone near by has Drone Rage and comes to my house with a gun ?

Maybe not on your deck, but some of us, maybe the majority, fly in open spaces. That's the concern.

 

[Flightpro]

That sounds great, but even in 2021 that would be difficult to mandate, possibly even implement. DJI's fencing doesn't get updated instantly that we're blessed they fence TSRs, if known far enough in advance. There's only one of their consumer models that has ADS-B and it doesn't report altitude, and many manned aircraft don't transmit ADS-B as I have discovered trying to figure out from FR24 how low some planes are going over my house.

Perhaps we can begin to implement that eventually all will have the ability but too soon to mandate.

Very true and thank you for that information. It was very helpful.

 

[Aeroforce 1]

Just so you know Remote ID doesn’t give you that freedom. There was a change to part 107 rules about flying over people but that is unrelated to Remote ID and is not for recreational flyers.

What's the change re: pt 107 & flying over people?