Would you support a lawsuit over Remote ID?

[Ray Dunakin]

I'm opposed to the FAA's "remote ID" rules. It seems they're are making it more and more difficult for a hobbyist to fly, and turning over the skies to Amazon and other business interests.

I would support a lawsuit if I thought it had a real chance to solve anything -- but I don't believe it will.

If they enforce this remote ID rule I will just have to stick with older drones that don't have that capability.

 

[spsphotos]

It's all fun and games till someone crashes into a manned aircraft and kills a bunch of people.

 

[lookout]

But back to OPs query.
Yes I would support blocking access to RC location data by the public, and even LEO without warrant.

I don't know though if they can base it on the 2018 cellphone location ruling. Telephony is in a different category with regards to privacy than piloting.

Pilot's safety would be more likely the approach to take, particularly with what I heard FAA claimed the pilot would have to provide his own means of protection, just as the airline industry took to locking the cockpit door to protect the pilot.
We can't exactly carry around a thick steel box to keep ourselves in while we fly.

That was the part that was stripped out of the new RID ruling. So here we go again.

I still say, they are going at this all wrong. What good does this process do, to prevent airspace incursions. Airspace incursions used to be a big deal, but now it's runway incursions.

 

[brett8883]

It's all fun and games till someone crashes into a manned aircraft and kills a bunch of people.

But how does transmitting my location to the general public prevent that? That’s the point. Remote ID is about enforcement not prevention.

We aren’t saying there shouldn’t be remote ID we are just saying it should only be available to LE and only when they have an actual reason to use it.

 

[lookout]

If i were to sue the FAA it would be for blind stupidity in how they handled the Drone issue in the first place.
It should have been a system that we already have in place with those of us that drive a car and have a license.

On the license it should have drone, car and bike.
When your 16 you drive a car and drone and 107 its simple.

If you have DUI - Than your not able to fly a drone if your drivers license is suspended this would further make teens more aware of how important the Drivers license was.

With the Remote ID - they have our license plates and now they can fine and suspend us as needed.

If i want to fly beyond VLOS it would be my decision to do so, and if I crash the drone , it would be the same a crashing a car and go on record with a fine despite the reason or where it crashed because I went beyond VLOS..

I really think this is the way it should have been treated and I kind of think that is where we are headed.
They just panicked and could not think clearly.

So yeah they should be fired for trying to reinvent the wheel.


Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly your Mavic in and out of the Storm.

Drivers' license, registration, insurance, tag, title, et. all is a racket all by itself.

Some groups say that we don't need all this for everyday commerce.

Can't convince the government of that.

Then there was your ss# used as your identity. That was to be used only for tax purposes.

But the registration part, would allow you to register your car with the government as being parked in a driveway listed on the registration. But in reality, the government owns the car that you went down to the car lot to buy with your own loan/money and registered with them. When the government has to make good on their debts they incured that you most likely didn't have any say in, they show up with a wrecker and take off with your major asset. Not quite what you expected.

 

[lookout]

You are sitting on your deck flying your drone totally legally and some crazy person from down the street finds your location based on the broadcast data and blows your brains out with a gun because he thinks you are spying on him.

For FAA and LE it’s the same thing as why wouldn’t you want the government tracking your every moment every day. Would you be ok with a location transmitter in your car? How bout an ankle bracket? It’s a privacy issue.

They've had several ideas about that too.

Marking an assailant with a gps tag that sticks to the car so they can be found later. But that was all replaced with just a simple on-star system.

They also had intentions of onboard gps to tax the difference between the gas mileage of an SUV and an economy car so that they pay just as much for the efficiency of the economy car as the inefficiency of the SUV.

 

[lookout]

So now if this whole thing is coming down to the Iphone App that anyone can use , than Yes I can agree with the Phone app should be shut down as it offers more problems than it solves.

Mabye the focus of the Law Suit needs to change to that rather than the Remote ID:

Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly you drone in and out of the Storm.

The iPhone app can detect the drone how far?

With the wifi only about 60 feet.

But if it's on the internet...well yeah anywhere there's an internet connection. Just about the same as the requirement to have an internet connection to be able to fly in some remote area.

 

[lookout]

WOW - my bad I thought the Petition came before the lawsuit . Not sure why I thought that but

Petition comes before legislation.

 

[spsphotos]

The iPhone app can detect the drone how far?

With the wifi only about 60 feet.

But if it's on the internet...well yeah anywhere there's an internet connection. Just about the same as the requirement to have an internet connection to be able to fly in some remote area.

Considering that the Mini and Mavic Air use WiFi I'd say it's a tad more than 60 feet. We are not talking about your phone's WiFi, but the wifi built into the drone itself.

 

[spsphotos]

The ONLY thing I might get behind would be for them to change the PIC location portion to require it to be encrypted with only law enforcement having the key to that encryption. Otherwise, I have zero issues with the new regs. And I can foresee if enough outcry and protesting to the FAA through normal channels that they might do that before it becomes mandatory THREE YEARS from now. Lawsuits tend to put people on the defensive. Taylor's suit was solely based on a minor technicality so I don't see that being used as a template for this.

 

[maelstrom]

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.

You’ve obviously never looked at Home - Serving the Flight Tracking Enthusiast - ADS-B Exchange. Also, there are numerous apps available which do much the same on your mobile device.

I'm opposed to the FAA's "remote ID" rules. It seems they're are making it more and more difficult for a hobbyist to fly, and turning over the skies to Amazon and other business interests.

You’re talking as though flying your drone in open airspace is a right. It’s not, it’s a privilege. The more we threaten lawsuits, the more likely we are to incur even more restrictions. We should be trying, calmly, to get the more controversial parts of the legislation changed rather than trying to get the whole thing cancelled (which isn’t going to happen).

 

[spsphotos]

I'm opposed to the FAA's "remote ID" rules. It seems they're are making it more and more difficult for a hobbyist to fly, and turning over the skies to Amazon and other business interests.

I would support a lawsuit if I thought it had a real chance to solve anything -- but I don't believe it will.

If they enforce this remote ID rule I will just have to stick with older drones that don't have that capability.

Oh, you mean like they do with manned aircraft like Airlines, UPS, FedEx, etc? Do you hear yourself? FAA is not there to support our "hobby" they are there to keep the airspace SAFE for all. I'm sure all those who fly small one man aircraft would just love to take off, land, fly where ever they want, however they want. What would happen then?

 

[RussOnTheRoad]

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?

I haven't participated in the survey because the answer I would give has not been included. That's the problem with multiple choice lists. For me, it would depend on the lawsuit as to whether or not I would financially support it. I definitely would if it made sense to me.

Beyond that, right now, my biggest problem with RID as proposed, at least as I understand it, is that any half-brain, gun-toting, dimwit with the knowledge and equipment might be able to track me down (am I mistaken?) and that is a very unsettling thought. That would be tantamount to letting anybody track your location at any time by using your cell phone to locate you. I cannot see any justification why any Joe A-Hole Public should be privy to my whereabouts. Law enforcement? That's a different story.

 

[Props Up]

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.

To be honest, when I first glanced at your original post, I thought that the lawsuit was about eliminating the entire Remote ID Rule. I'm guessing that many others may have missed the point as well. I am not sure if a different wording would make the intent clearer at first glance.
I totally agree with the proposal of not broadcasting pilot location and personally identifiable information to the public or LE without a proper warrant, so I would support activities to remove such requirement from the Remote ID Rule.

 

[brett8883]

To be honest, when I first glanced at your original post, I thought that the lawsuit was about eliminating the entire Remote ID Rule. I'm guessing that many others may have missed the point as well. I am not sure if a different wording would make the intent clearer at first glance.
I totally agree with the proposal of not broadcasting pilot location and personally identifiable information to the public or LE without a proper warrant, so I would support activities to remove such requirement from the Remote ID Rule.

Thanks!

Yes well I could only fit so much into the title and it has spurred some really good dialogue. It has helped a lot to hone the message we want to send.

 

[brett8883]

I haven't participated in the survey because the answer I would give has not been included. That's the problem with multiple choice lists. For me, it would depend on the lawsuit as to whether or not I would financially support it. I definitely would if it made sense to me.

Great! Thanks for the input!

What I think I heard you say is that you open to the idea of supporting something like this. I know that it will have to make sense for anyone to support it and we don’t have a real plan at this point. The vote is just a way for me to gauge the level of support there is this and to what degree.

These comments are extremely helpful in molding what the position will be.

What I hear so far is consensus is of people who commented is they are very concerned about the general public seeing the data. That’s priority #1.

Requiring LE to get a warrant to access the data seems to be a bit lesser priority in terms of what people are worried about but most find it a reasonable thing to require if I understand correctly.

These are the kinds of things that are necessary to know before molding our legal argument.

 

[Floater]

If i were to sue the FAA it would be for blind stupidity in how they handled the Drone issue in the first place.
It should have been a system that we already have in place with those of us that drive a car and have a license.

On the license it should have drone, car and bike.
When your 16 you drive a car and drone and 107 its simple.

If you have DUI - Than your not able to fly a drone if your drivers license is suspended this would further make teens more aware of how important the Drivers license was.
...

Be careful what you wish for! A driver license is a document that the states issue that give you the privilege of operating a car on public streets and highways. You have this access at the pleasure of the state.
Contrary to the common "pilot's license", there is no license for access to the air space system. It is a pilot certificate; it is the Federal government's recognition that the holder has met certain knowledge and performance standards. DUI's must be reported to the FAA in any event as well as reported on one's medical certificate applications. The 107 remote pilot certificate is strange; all my other airman certificates are common. My ID # carries across my pilot and technician certificates and they all look the same. My 107 certificate looks different and identifies me with a different number. I am not sure what is really going on there. Any aviation legal experts out there to educate us?

 

[village video NEWS]

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?

My vote would actually be for a compromise NO remote ID required when you are 5 miles or more from
Airports
Sporting events
US Military instillations
Areas considered Highly populated
ie where there are 20 or more buildings of at least 20 stories and considered densely populated
otherwise you are free to fly without remote ID
This should let you fly where cell phone service is sporadic and in non densely populated areas
I would also add within 2 miles of a no fly zone

 

[Tolipa]

You’ve obviously never looked at Home - Serving the Flight Tracking Enthusiast - ADS-B Exchange. Also, there are numerous apps available which do much the same on your mobile device.

You’re talking as though flying your drone in open airspace is a right. It’s not, it’s a privilege. The more we threaten lawsuits, the more likely we are to incur even more restrictions. We should be trying, calmly, to get the more controversial parts of the legislation changed rather than trying to get the whole thing cancelled (which isn’t going to happen).

Just to be clear, by "way beyond the reach", I meant they are in the flight levels and don't have to worry about some crazy neighbor shooting them down. -

 

[brett8883]

My vote would actually be for a compromise NO remote ID required when you are 5 miles or more from
Airports
Sporting events
US Military instillations
Areas considered Highly populated
ie where there are 20 or more buildings of at least 20 stories and considered densely populated
otherwise you are free to fly without remote ID
This should let you fly where cell phone service is sporadic and in non densely populated areas
I would also add within 2 miles of a no fly zone

There are many different scenarios I would have preferred than what we got no question.