https://jrupprechtlaw.com/racedayqua...n-regulations/

It does appear that they have polished this up into something a bit more thought through this time.

I am not sure what they hope to accomplish in the end though. My fear is that any successful challenge will only come back at us with even stricter and more defensible regulations. I really don't think this is just going to go away.

Originally Posted by aymodeler

I am not sure what they hope to accomplish in the end though.

Well, here's what the brief asks for (breaks added for clarity):

WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully request that the Court

vacate the final rule and remand to the FAA to consult with NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) and RTCA (RTCA Inc),

publish a new or supplemental NPRM with full disclosure of all previously undisclosed information and newly implemented requirements,

to properly address material comments,

and to recognize the protections of the Fourth Amendment.

Basically they want FAA to go back to the drawing board. However, there is no suggestion that the idea of RID itself is illegal or un-Constitutional, just that this implementation of it goes too far and was developed in a legally flawed manner.

So, I share your concern that what eventually comes back (if the Court buys the arguments) could be worse that what we have now.

Originally Posted by aymodeler

It does appear that they have polished this up into something a bit more thought through this time.

I am not sure what they hope to accomplish in the end though. My fear is that any successful challenge will only come back at us with even stricter and more defensible regulations. I really don't think this is just going to go away.

X3 ... Not seeing a victory for them as a good thing for the hobby, long term ...

Originally Posted by Coupez

So, I share your concern that what eventually comes back (if the Court buys the arguments) could be worse that what we have now.

Originally Posted by atreis

X3 ... Not seeing a victory for them as a good thing for the hobby, long term ...

What bugs me most about this, is that most of the drone/quad guys keep going off on RID when the real issue that is impacting them is the ban on recreational BVLOS. Attacking RID will not help them win that battle, and throwing shade at the FAA every chance they get is only going to make things worse in the long run.

The hobby is not in a position of strength here, and we all need to pick and choose battles very wisely!

probably way too premature in their lawsuit.
needed to file it away for after it becomes operational, and too expensive to make massive changes in, then hit em with your best shot.
all they are doing now, is helping the FAA, and whoever else, find and locate their flaws, before they get cast in stone, and damned hard to modify.

Originally Posted by aymodeler

It does appear that they have polished this up into something a bit more thought through this time.

I am not sure what they hope to accomplish in the end though. My fear is that any successful challenge will only come back at us with even stricter and more defensible regulations. I really don't think this is just going to go away.

I agree with you, I think these type of legal actions do more harm than good. Once before a guy won a case at the federal level, only to have Congress respond by inserting the exact language in the law that allowed FAA to go back to doing what they were doing before. This too will suffer the same fate if they win. Taylor was hailed as a hero here by some, now he's all but forgotten. The attorney here is using this case to increase his notoriety, nothing more.

Originally Posted by Coupez

So, I share your concern that what eventually comes back (if the Court buys the arguments) could be worse that what we have now.

I agree. I see no good in poking the bear for Line Of Sight fliers. I wasn't aware of this suit until the 12/21 issue of Model Aviation hit my mailbox.

Wasn't it just last year the FPV guys were screaming for support of the airplane community and decrying being "thrown under the bus"? The current FAA rule is livable for LOS fliers, and I really don't see a problem in it for responsible FPV fliers. Now this FPV business, (RDQ) with loud support from the FPV community is willing to roll the dice on the FAA with no clear goal or solution offered. Their suit seems to hold no concern for R/C Airplane fliers needs. The complaints are a mish mash of gripes confusing the NPRM and the final rule. So much for all hanging together.

AMA's "One Community" concept cannot work until the AMA recognizes that FPV and LOS fliers have little in common. Park Pilots have a separate AMA magazine, separate insurance requirements, etc. With the size of the FPV market and the FPV community wanting little to do with the AMA, it's rules, flying sites, etc, the AMA needs to set up and administer a CBO FPV program in it's own right.

The case is in court now and you should watch this video:

Aviation attorney analyzes RDQ vs. FAA oral arguments in DC circuit court (28 min 1 sec)

Well; that was interesting. Not so sure I was impressed with either of the attorneys from what was played but, apparently there was much more discussed and the RDQ attorney must have made some valid points. Lets hope the 3 judges find the RID unconstitutional and force the FAA to do a rewrite.

Originally Posted by Lufo

Well; that was interesting. Not so sure I was impressed with either of the attorneys from what was played but, apparently there was much more discussed and the RDQ attorney must have made some valid points. Lets hope the 3 judges find the RID unconstitutional and force the FAA to do a rewrite.

Didn't watch the vid, but clearly the FAA is in serious trouble here.

On the constitutional issues:

A. The Rule Infringes Upon Reasonable Expectations in Privacy
1. Warrantless Search of Curtilage
2. Infringes upon Privacy Interests of Small Drone Operators
3. Infringes upon Privacy Expectation in the Whole of People’s Movements
4. The Fourth Amendment is Violated by Unlimited Time Length of Tracking
B. Remote ID Utilizes More Intrusive Tracking Technology Than That Already Recognized as Unconstitutional

Part of the FAA's response was that tracking wasn't intended to be used for law enforcement purposes, yet their entire excuse for requiring RID is, in fact, for LEO's to be able to track down offenders. The 4th requires a warrant, with probable cause, etc. IMHO they'll be laughed out of court.

FAA ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY EITHER RELIED UPON UNDISCLOSED EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS, OR FAILED TO CONSIDER RELEVANT INFORMATION, AND TO EXPLAIN OR SUPPORT CHANGES IN THE FINAL RULE

The referenced website cites extensive and secret ex parte communications by the FAA, including with parties hostile to the model airplane community such as dAmazon, and with the DHS for purposes of intrusive government surveillance. They then tried to brush this off by saying it didn't influence their decision at all. Good luck with that.

Things might be getting a little "interesting" for the FAA. Or-- not.

There's been a significant unresolved ambiguity in the regs, muddying the interpretation of over a dozen FARs and leading to unnecessarily failed pilot check rides, ever since the 1993 "alphabet" airspace re-organization. But somehow the FAA has never seen the need to deal with it. Clearly they are used to being able to just wave their hands and say "well, don't worry about the details, just let us make it up as we go along. Whatever the 'administrator' says, goes." Or, fairly often, whatever any given examiner says, goes.

I'm not saying that any given individual person in the FAA is evil or even merely negligent. But for whatever reason, the culture of the institution as a whole has evolved in a direction that is less than ideal.

Originally Posted by rcgroupie

Didn't watch the vid, but clearly the FAA is in serious trouble here.

On the constitutional issues:
Part of the FAA's response was that tracking wasn't intended to be used for law enforcement purposes, yet their entire excuse for requiring RID is, in fact, for LEO's to be able to track down offenders. The 4th requires a warrant, with probable cause, etc. IMHO they'll be laughed out of court.

The referenced website cites extensive and secret ex parte communications by the FAA, including with parties hostile to the model airplane community such as dAmazon, and with the DHS for purposes of intrusive government surveillance. They then tried to brush this off by saying it didn't influence their decision at all. Good luck with that.

Yep, something I keyed in on, from what little I heard, was the FAA was not being open about how this RID would trickle down and be available to all LEO on a whim. Extreme invasion of privacy in your house. Here are scenarios, and no one should think this could not happen.

(1) Take an individual that is not a follower of the law, LEO wants an in into his home and life. They start with the RID and then move to court action to become more invasive. Not much different than profiling and pulling someone over for a burned out trim/beauty lamp just to get a chance to see what is in the car. To many cops will say "I sensed the odor of marijuana and began a search of the person and car".

(2) Police is looking for an individual and believe he may be in his home or somewhere. They know he has an RID assigned to him so begin watching various homes. Once the RID pings again they know where he is.

(3) Anywhere you go and take that drone, and it is powered up, you can be tracked. Third party private detective is paid by someone to keep track of someone else. He has buddy in PD, or has access to database of RID information. He can now follow you and monitor your activities.

RID needs to go away and the FAA needs to be brought to their knees legally.

Originally Posted by aeronaut999

But for whatever reason, the culture of the institution as a whole has evolved in a direction that is less than ideal.

It's called Government Bureaucracy

Originally Posted by Lufo

Well; that was interesting. Not so sure I was impressed with either of the attorneys from what was played but, apparently there was much more discussed and the RDQ attorney must have made some valid points. Lets hope the 3 judges find the RID unconstitutional and force the FAA to do a rewrite.

Unlikely. It's the DC circuit. The blindfold Justice wears in that court is labeled "deference to administrative agencies".