ECHO24

Great analogy. It's hard to take some of this seriously. One thing is dead on arrival: "[RDQ and Tyler Brennan are]
… confronting the FAA’s rulemaking as … rampant with unlawful arbitrary and capricious decision making".

John Taylor (2018 decision) made the same "arbitrary and capricious" claims, under 5 separate arguments:
"We reject all of Taylor's arbitrary and capricious challenges to the rule".

RaceDayQuads' lawsuit is in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the same court.

R_Strowe

The difference is that the Taylor lawsuit was based on A:80 years of model operations yet the FAA saw no need to exercise regulation over R/C ops, and B:the law in place (at the time) stated that the FAA may not promulgate any new rules or regulations for recreational operations.

I'm guessing RDQ will have a much more difficult time, since what they are claiming is not enumerated in the Constitution as a right.

R_Strowe

ECHO24

On "A" the court ruled that the FAA's "previous failure to regulate recreational model aircraft was an
exercise of regulatory discretion, not statutory interpretation".

On "B" the court ruled, "101.4 does not regulate section 336 model aircraft at all. On the contrary, it
simply defines the model aircraft that fall within 336(a)".

The court also rejected Taylor's claim that the FAA had no authority to regulate recreational model aircraft
that did not fall under 336 or 107, "the Act does not create the three separate regimes that Taylor perceives".

That 2018 decision will be the final word on the FAA's authority over hobby drones and Remote ID. It's a total
smack-down. On Rupprecht Law's drone lawsuit database it's only shown as "adjudicated", without comment.

----

(This is Taylor II, the challenge to the 2016 FAA rule (Part 107) that Taylor lost. Registration was Taylor I)

ECHO24

The Taylor II decision, along with the 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act section on Remote ID, means
RaceDayQuads lawsuit doesn't stand a snowball's chance.

" ``(f) Exceptions.--Nothing in this section prohibits the
Administrator from promulgating rules generally applicable to unmanned
aircraft, including those unmanned aircraft eligible for the exception
set forth in this section, relating to--

``(3) the standards for remotely identifying owners and
operators of unmanned aircraft systems and associated unmanned
aircraft;

"generally applicable" to RDQ. Note, the lawsuit was announced over a year ago, with no
grounds and nothing to sue over yet, before the NPRM comment period had even ended.

aymodeler

My Feedback: (3)

If only James Madison had thought to include this sentence in the Bill of Rights :

Hydro Junkie

He might have, that is if more than just birds flew in his lifetime

ECHO24

Tyler Brennan thinks it's in there somewhere..

ECHO24

It's not flying model airplanes per se Tyler Brennan thinks is a constitutional right, it's FPV, something so
intrusive police departments need a search warrant for it in some cases. Good luck arguing citizens have
free reign to do it for fun.

Hydro Junkie

GEEZ DUDE, CALM DOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't see anyone saying FPV or flying R/C aircraft is a constitutional right. All that was said is that a 2nd amendment type of statement about flying models would have been nice and that since only birds flew in that time made it unlikely to even be thought about. I don't see anyone going any further than that and I took the post I replied to as a "tongue in cheek" kind of statement and replied to it in the same vein. How about you go find a beer, or something harder, and take a chill pill as there's no reason to get all twisted up over the last two posts

GallopingGhostler

Given trends today, I'd think the thoughts of Joseph Stalin would be more apt : “A single model aircraft grounded is a tragedy; a million model aircraft grounded is a statistic.” and “Killing model flying is the solution to all problems. No flying - no problem.”

ECHO24

Uhh, alrighty then, Mr. Takeseverythingpersonally. Nobody was saying flying RC was a constitutional right
until you said maybe it was, tounge-in-cheek hard to divine in context. Good on you for clearing that up.

--------------

While we're on the subject,

RDQ's lawyer Jonathan Rupprecht (ironically) posted a March 18th Michigan State Court of Appeals decision on his
website, in a case that turns RDQ's lawsuit on it's ear. At issue was a township using drone surveillance (a private
contractor) for code enforcement. The court ruled that the drone photos violated the 4th Amendment.

Arguing that FPV is a constitutional right presents a conundrum for Mr. Rupprecht, when the FPV itself can be
a violation of someone else's constitutional right to privacy.:

"persons have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their property against drone surveillance”

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

everywhere else is fair game.

ECHO24

For that to be so assumes all other airspace is unrestricted. It's not. In any case,
it's not a constitutional right, which was the point.

-------------

Although the 4th Amendment concerns actions by government, this case differentiates aerial surveillance
from aircraft vs. that from drones, which applies to the reasonable expectation of privacy in general:

"The FAA regulations, 14 CFR part 107,5 require drone operators to keep drones within visual observation at all
times, fly drones no higher than 400 feet, refrain from flying drones over human beings, and obtain a certification.
Such rules reflect the fact that drones are qualitatively different from airplanes and helicopters: they are vastly smaller
and operate within little more than a football field’s distance from the ground. A drone is therefore necessarily more
intrusive into a person’s private space than would be an airplane overflight. Furthermore, unlike airplanes, which routinely
fly overhead for purposes unrelated to intentionally-targeted surveillance, drone overflights are not as commonplace, as
inadvertent, or as costly. In other words, drones are intrinsically more targeted in nature than airplanes and intrinsically
much easier to deploy. Furthermore, given their maneuverability, speed, and stealth, drones are—like thermal imaging
devices—capable of drastically exceeding the kind of human limitations that would have been expected by the Framers
not just in degree, but in kind."

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

A person out in public has no reasonable expectation to privacy, whether it be from a drone, an airplane, a "traditional" photographer, or a surveillance camera. Precedent has been set countless times.

ECHO24

Franklin, db.c/DRONIN'ON has not been updated for a while. Have you heard anything from them?

franklin_m

We chatted briefly late summer on another topic, but haven't talked with him since.

ECHO24

It wasn't in public. The ruling also specifically established that a drone differs from traditional aerial surveillance,
which is why it's important. Read the case before offering your expert opinion..

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Do you suffer from reading comprehension, or are you just looking for an argument?

I very clearly acknowledged your statement about it being on private property, I even quoted it and replied, "Everywhere else is fair game".

Try and keep up. Maybe you should take your own advice about, "expert opinions". I shouldn't have to explain my correct, plain English, just because you fail to understand it.

Astro

ECHO24

First, the reason for your out-of-context responses is you're so focused on your wordsmithing that you don't clearly read what you're answering.
Second, learn to support what you say with a citation, statistic, quote from an expert, etc. Your personal opinion is meaningless.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

More words with zero content....if you are just trying to get the last word, just say so. If you want to have a meaningful discussion, write something that has some actual content.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

if yall don't straighten up, i am going to tell smithdoor where to find new folks to indoctrinate with his gibberish...

ECHO24

Christopher Korody put out a lot of great information. Hopefully we'll hear from him again.

R_Strowe

Oh, god no! I wouldn't wish that on ANYONE😳

R_Strowe

ECHO24

The short version (for the hard-headed):

"We conclude that; much like the infrared imaging device discussed in Kyllo; low-altitude, unmanned,
specifically-targeted drone surveillance of a private individual's property is qualitatively different from the
kinds of human-operated aircraft overflights permitted by Ciraolo and Riley."

"The development of historically-novel ways to conduct unprecedented levels of surveillance at trivial expense
does not per se reduce what society and the law will recognize as a reasonable expectation of privacy."

It's taken a while for the courts to catch up, but it's the same dead-end for hobby drones, and for RC in general now
that "model aircraft" are no longer a separate category. Whatever a drone's camera records is "specifically targeted".

flyboy2610

My Feedback: (1)

Maybe they should be banished to the Island of Perpetual Tickling!