Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

AMA Bashing is Pointless

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

AMA Bashing is Pointless

Old 04-04-2021, 02:23 PM
  #301  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 2,663
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ECHO24 View Post
The short version (for the hard-headed):

of a private individual's property
...
Old 04-09-2021, 03:45 AM
  #302  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,953
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
AMA won't even enforce it's own rules, let alone FAA rules.

Before 2014, AMA safety code explicitly stated:
- Model aircraft will not be flown in a careless or reckless manner (item A1a), and
- All pilots shall avoid flying directly over unprotected people, vessels, vehicles or structures and shall avoid endangerment of life and property of others (item B1)

Yet per the attached court decision, an AMA club under direction of "Agents of the AMA" (aka Contest Directors) permitted regular and repeated violations of one or the other. As "representative of the Academy of Model Aeronautics," were in direct operational control of any sanctioned event. As a "representative of the Academy of Model Aeronautics," this means the AMA was in fact aware of and permitted such activities. Activities that included "...increasingly putting residents, workers, livestock, buildings, equipment, and crops in threatening situations" (court case, pg 5). Note that "residents" and "workers" are "unprotected people" as defined in AMA's safety code item B1. And "livestock, buildings, equipment, and crops" are "property" as defined in that same document. So not only did the AMA members have a duty to NOT do what they did, the club safety officer had a duty to not permit it, the CDs had a duty to stop it, and the AMA had a duty to act on it.

AMA did NOTHING to sanction this club. The representatives of the AMA (CDs) did nothing. The club safety officer did nothing. And the individuals clearly felt no obligation to obey the AMA rules. AMA's safety code is nothing but paper unless it's enforced, and that has to come from Taj-Muncie. But they've shown just the opposite, little if any desire to action take enforcement action. Even when these actions involve the highest risk highest visibility operations AMA reportedly "oversees." In one instance they even admit to a problem (16 July 2016 EC minutes), but indicate it all comes down to not driving away members. And in that one statement, we see the real reason they don't act - the almighty dollar.
Elsewhere some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that this has nothing to do with the members reckless overflight behavior, the club's failure to control their members and follow AMA overflight rules, the failure of "agents of the AMA" supervising events (a.k.a. CDs) to enforce AMA overflight rules, and ultimately the AMA - knowing this was taking place (via "agents") - failure to enforce their own rules.

The ZHB found that the Club’s activities would “be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare” of neighboring properties. Decision of the ZHB, April 13, 2015. (R.R. at 506a.) The trial court stated:

The record is replete with testimony. . . evidencing the Club’s inability to ensure the safety of [Landowners’] neighbors and the public at large. There have been numerous complaints, crashes, and trespasses by Club members retrieving fallen parts from neighboring land. The Club’s actions are increasingly putting residents, workers, livestock, buildings, equipment, and crops in threatening situations. - Trial Court Opinion, January 22, 2016, at 12-13. (Landowners’ Br., Appendix B.)

the evidence before the ZHB in this case included concrete accounts of model aircraft repeatedly crashing on adjacent property. There is substantial evidence to support the finding that the operation of these model planes poses a serious threat to persons on adjoining land.


We know that the trial of a famous depression era gangster was not just about tax evasion, but rather a result of greater lawlessness. Do the people making the argument that this was all about zoning really think we're stupid enough to believe that absent any of the overflights, crashes, and dangers mentioned extensively in the court document posted above - that this zoning action would still have happened? The township simply used a tool it had available, zoning, to shut down operations of the club when the individuals, the club, and the AMA showed inability or unwillingness to follow their own rules. And yes, because this took place under the direct supervision of "agents of the AMA", then AMA knew. And yet AMA still did nothing.

The court said the club's activities (overflights) posed a serious threat. And AMA did not lift a finger to stop it.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf
Grim v Perry.pdf (106.6 KB, 15 views)

Last edited by franklin_m; 04-09-2021 at 04:05 AM.
Old 04-10-2021, 06:54 PM
  #303  
ElectriMan
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: East Coast of Wisconsin
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
Elsewhere some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that this has nothing to do with the members reckless overflight behavior, the club's failure to control their members and follow AMA overflight rules, the failure of "agents of the AMA" supervising events (a.k.a. CDs) to enforce AMA overflight rules, and ultimately the AMA - knowing this was taking place (via "agents") - failure to enforce their own rules.
The ZHB found that the Club’s activities would “be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare” of neighboring properties. Decision of the ZHB, April 13, 2015. (R.R. at 506a.) The trial court stated:

The record is replete with testimony. . . evidencing the Club’s inability to ensure the safety of [Landowners’] neighbors and the public at large. There have been numerous complaints, crashes, and trespasses by Club members retrieving fallen parts from neighboring land. The Club’s actions are increasingly putting residents, workers, livestock, buildings, equipment, and crops in threatening situations. - Trial Court Opinion, January 22, 2016, at 12-13. (Landowners’ Br., Appendix B.)

the evidence before the ZHB in this case included concrete accounts of model aircraft repeatedly crashing on adjacent property. There is substantial evidence to support the finding that the operation of these model planes poses a serious threat to persons on adjoining land.


We know that the trial of a famous depression era gangster was not just about tax evasion, but rather a result of greater lawlessness. Do the people making the argument that this was all about zoning really think we're stupid enough to believe that absent any of the overflights, crashes, and dangers mentioned extensively in the court document posted above - that this zoning action would still have happened? The township simply used a tool it had available, zoning, to shut down operations of the club when the individuals, the club, and the AMA showed inability or unwillingness to follow their own rules. And yes, because this took place under the direct supervision of "agents of the AMA", then AMA knew. And yet AMA still did nothing.

The court said the club's activities (overflights) posed a serious threat. And AMA did not lift a finger to stop it.
Does this have some relevance to the year 2021?
Old 04-10-2021, 07:53 PM
  #304  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 9,609
Likes: 0
Received 93 Likes on 90 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ElectriMan View Post
Does this have some relevance to the year 2021?
Actually, it does. Have you seen or heard anything from Muncie that shows any kind of change in the way they expect things to be done? I haven't and, since I haven't, that means the EC isn't acting on anything. That being the case, how can the EC expect the FAA to take the AMA seriously?
Old 04-11-2021, 04:00 AM
  #305  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,953
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by ElectriMan View Post
Does this have some relevance to the year 2021?
Absolutely. Although AMA thinks the FAA will allow them to have individual clubs be accountable to the FAA for the FRIAs, the FAA has to follow the law. And unless each individual club applying for them meet the definition of a CBO under the law, it won't happen. AMA was, once again, too smart by half. Clubs are not CBOs. The AMA is. Which means it will be AMA on the line.

And that's where it ties to the above. The AMA's culture hasn't changed since the Fairview Flyers. They love to write rules in Taj-Muncie but then say "it's up to clubs to enforce them." That is going to be a problem when FAA gets complaints about FRIAs and turns to AMA and says "what are YOU going to do about it?" AMA has no capacity (nor will) to actually hold members accountable. Which was, is, and will continue to be a problem - especially when dealing with FAA.
Old 04-11-2021, 12:03 PM
  #306  
fliers1
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Lockport, NY
Posts: 1,287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Does AMA still offer partial pay for TV, radio or newspaper ads? It was something like that a while ago, but I haven't seen anything like that since. Clubs could see what it would take to place free public announcements on local cable. Our club did that many years ago. It did help attract a few new members, but we haven't done it since. Something like this could be on local cable for free: .

Last edited by fliers1; 04-11-2021 at 12:14 PM.
Old 04-23-2021, 03:53 PM
  #307  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Rupprecht Law website shows RaceDayQuads FAA lawsuit Petition for Review and Court notice of docketing
with strikethrough lines, indicating at this point it's a no-go:
https://jrupprechtlaw.com/racedayqua...n-regulations/

Several additional filings scheduled for last week also apparently did not happen. There's no additional comment
from Jonathan Rupprecht and no update on RDQ's FAA lawsuit webpage. I'm on Rupprecht Law's mailing list
(most recent email yesterday) and no mention of the lawsuit there either.
Old 05-05-2021, 06:17 AM
  #308  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ECHO24 View Post
Rupprecht Law website shows RaceDayQuads FAA lawsuit Petition for Review and Court notice of docketing
with strikethrough lines, indicating at this point it's a no-go:
https://jrupprechtlaw.com/racedayqua...n-regulations/

Several additional filings scheduled for last week also apparently did not happen. There's no additional comment
from Jonathan Rupprecht and no update on RDQ's FAA lawsuit webpage. I'm on Rupprecht Law's mailing list
(most recent email yesterday) and no mention of the lawsuit there either.
This is just speculation, but a pending court decision may have something to do with RDQ's lawsuit disappearing.
EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center) had sued the FAA to obtain records from the Drone Advisory
Committee subgroups. Central to RDQ's lawsuit, at least according to the press release, was a similar claim
about "secret meetings" (and non-disclosure agreements).

Last Friday, the D.C. Circuit Court ruled the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires federal advisory
committee records to be made publicly available, does not apply to their subgroups.

Last edited by ECHO24; 05-05-2021 at 07:04 AM.
Old 05-17-2021, 10:07 PM
  #309  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ECHO24 View Post
This is just speculation, but a pending court decision may have something to do with RDQ's lawsuit disappearing.
EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center) had sued the FAA to obtain records from the Drone Advisory
Committee subgroups. Central to RDQ's lawsuit, at least according to the press release, was a similar claim
about "secret meetings" (and non-disclosure agreements).

Last Friday, the D.C. Circuit Court ruled the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires federal advisory
committee records to be made publicly available, does not apply to their subgroups.
The RDQ's lawsuit is the most significant drone (model aircraft) development since the Remote ID rule. It seems to have
vanished. After couple of previous exchanges with Jonathan Rupprecht, I haven't tried to contact him for an update (since
his website glosses over all negative court rulings), but about twice a week I receive emails promoting his 107 drone services.
Zero info from RDQ as well:
https://www.racedayquads.com/pages/f...le-to-save-fpv

RDQ claims, at least as published, center on post-NPRM-comment actions by the FAA, so the EPIC decision is a bit of a stretch.
But it's the only other thing related that's happened.
Old 09-14-2021, 07:37 AM
  #310  
Navy_1
 
Navy_1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Jacksonville, Fl
Posts: 232
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by BaltimoreBomber View Post
WOW.
Now the nostalgia is really flowing. I stumbled onto this thread after wondering if the AMA experience I had as a kid, that chased me out of the hobby 30 years ago, was just a fluke, Apparently not. All those old men in the late 80's passed on the traits I saw back then very well to the current group of people in control. I was actually researching clubs (quite gingerly) for the spring as I have returned to the hobby. But I will cease and desist after reading this thread.

If anyone cares, here is my bad experience with the local AMA club which no longer exists.
I had very good building skills for my age. Built and flew 2 glow planes in the late 80's, around my preteens. I joined the local club, they gave me the runaround for a full 8 months (of paying dues and doing countless hours of free labor, which nobody else showed up for.)
I was never allowed to get my gear out of the car. every weekend I showed up, ran and talked to the "elders" they said no, I stayed and sent my gear back home with my parents.. FOR 8 MONTHS. stayed 6-8 hours every day i was there because i was gullible and told someone would come with a buddy box and give me stick time, or somebody would be introduced to me that would at least maiden my plane (even though I had been flying a year already.) They took total advantage of me. At the end it was heated, nasty arguments when my parents dropped me off or picked me up and i said nope not this time either.
Finallymy father put his foot down. "maiden his plane at least".So after all that, two weekends later and right before winter, they got someone to "check out andmaiden" my plane. a
pt-40 with an enya .40 they made me get, as an official trainer can only be used for training. I had put over a hundred flights on it. It looked like an old lawn mower brown stained on top from gallons of nitro and green on the bottom from my back yard.
They go over it for an hour. Check and recheck. fires right up. taxis around. Guy1 takes it up. flies beautifully. no adjustments. touch and goes, even some slow rolls and inverted, empties the tank in the air and brings it in dead engine. Now i dont like whats happening. They are talking and here comes pop pop senior man on the ground. Hes talking it down cause its dirty. We cant have dirty old planes in this club he said. I said "ive been flying it all summer. I only got it to join this club because you guys told me to..." I could see the red creep up his neck.
He said to the guy that flew it first "let me check it out". HEs the boss. guy1 says refuel it so he can check it out. So i do. No problem. get it running and everything. fresh battery.
Pop pop senior takes it straight up. proceeds to wide open throttle "3D acrobatic" stunt my plane as hard as it will go. less than 2 minutes later he stalls it doing some trick, doesnt make it back to the runway, smashes it into low trees at the end of the property. Sets my radio down without a word and walks to his car and eats a sandwich like nothing happened.
It was FOR SURE out of spite. Last time i ever had any dealings with the AMA until I read this thread.
well, my experience was a bit different but on par with the Clubs are the biggest issue, this highlights why the hobbie is dying and i think this was touched on at the beginning of the posts, im 45 now, the one Experience i had at the Club in Ridgecrest CA, They had there Field on China Lake Naval Air Station,None of the members were active Duty, they had a deal with a past Skipper of the base that used to fly, that they could use the area and had special access to just that area of the base, The way i was treated was enough for me to go rogue, i recently have gotten back into the hobbie, more planes upgraded radio etc. I now live in North Florida and recently Emailed the local clube with a few questions, the biggest one being what is the FAA test i have to take that is required on the Clubs App and if he could provide a web address, as i was find nothing that pertained to R/C airplanes, only Drones, The person i talk to was in no way helpful, he mentioned that they had a FaceBook page, I don't have FaceBook, and the Emails stopped. So like it was said, when these people stop flying, where does that leave the field? when the AMA Dies, where does that leave the field? there was a person Bashing Flight Test, that is what made me get back in to RC, is those guys, i have a SR-22,GeeBee and a Apriantice, what is my motivation in spending Money at a local club if attitudes Suck. What is the purpose of giving money to the AMA? no one has ever answered that. the Insurance? access to a field ill never use, a magazine ill never read? A museum ill never go to and a List of clubs that don't want new flyers. people that Fly Electric and fome at a lot of these fields are looked down upon. well Electric and fome is the hobby, you want to save the Hobby, tape into all of out there Flying in Parking lots, open fields and parks.

Last edited by Navy_1; 09-14-2021 at 07:42 AM.
Old 09-14-2021, 07:43 AM
  #311  
BarracudaHockey
My Feedback: (11)
 
BarracudaHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 25,201
Received 152 Likes on 123 Posts
Default

What is it you need to know?

Is the TRUST test required for model operations? Yes.
it can be taken here and takes about 15 minutes to complete
https://www.modelaircraft.org/trust click the yellow box that says "TAKE THE TEST"

You're welcome to join us at Gateway or once we get the field reopened, Jax RC, ask for Andy. Hope to see you at the field, if you have any questions feel free to PM me or ask here.
Old 09-14-2021, 08:15 AM
  #312  
Navy_1
 
Navy_1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Jacksonville, Fl
Posts: 232
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

It says " hold a current FAA UAS certificate " not sure what that is, i did find something on the FAA site that i had to go through a training course of sorts complete thePart 107 Small UAS Recurrent (ALC-677) online training course. and from what i'm reading i have to recertify and put stickers on my planes. am i even in the right area?
Old 09-14-2021, 08:22 AM
  #313  
BarracudaHockey
My Feedback: (11)
 
BarracudaHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 25,201
Received 152 Likes on 123 Posts
Default

No no no, that's commercial.

Let me know which club so I can take a look. To be complaint with federal law you need an FAA registration and a trust exam. The FAA recreational registration is 5 dollars for 3 years and available here.
https://faadronezone.faa.gov/#/ then select "I fly under the exemption for recreational flyers" and fill in your info. It may mistakenly ask about your aircraft, just create a home built with a SN of 001 and click past that, they shouldn't have put that portion up yet.
Old 09-14-2021, 08:35 AM
  #314  
BarracudaHockey
My Feedback: (11)
 
BarracudaHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 25,201
Received 152 Likes on 123 Posts
Default

Ok, ya, that UAS certificate they are talking about is my post above, FAA registration and TRUST exam.

Old 09-14-2021, 12:43 PM
  #315  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by BarracudaHockey View Post
Ok, ya, that UAS certificate they are talking about is my post above, FAA registration and TRUST exam.
What's the penalty for not registering and taking the test?
Old 09-14-2021, 01:03 PM
  #316  
BarracudaHockey
My Feedback: (11)
 
BarracudaHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 25,201
Received 152 Likes on 123 Posts
Default

From the FAA on Registration
Failure to register a drone that requires registration may result in regulatory and criminal penalties. The FAA may assess civil penalties up to $27,500. Criminal penalties include fines of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment for up to three (3) years.
So, more than $5 every 3 years

About the test
But if you’re openly flaunting the law and refuse to take the test, the agency can fine you up to a maximum of $1,548 per violation, possibly including Part 107 violations that you wouldn’t normally worry about when flying for fun. That’s because you’re not actually covered under the recreational exception if you don’t complete the test
Again, more than what it takes to pass the test, which is FREE.

Now, the FAA leans toward education over enforcement so are any of these likely? Not really, but it's what is POSSIBLE


Last edited by BarracudaHockey; 09-14-2021 at 01:06 PM.
Old 09-14-2021, 01:32 PM
  #317  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by BarracudaHockey View Post
From the FAA on Registration


So, more than $5 every 3 years

About the test

Again, more than what it takes to pass the test, which is FREE.

Now, the FAA leans toward education over enforcement so are any of these likely? Not really, but it's what is POSSIBLE
The guy who came close to hitting the Airbus with his drone over McCarren airport, the FAA let him off scot-free.

Under the new World Order, though, non-compliance with an administrative rule is now a terrorist act.

Maybe I will register and take the test.

Last edited by ECHO24; 09-14-2021 at 01:36 PM.
Old 09-14-2021, 01:53 PM
  #318  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,915
Received 26 Likes on 21 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ECHO24 View Post
The guy who came close to hitting the Airbus with his drone over McCarren airport, the FAA let him off scot-free.

Under the new World Order, though, non-compliance with an administrative rule is now a terrorist act.

Maybe I will register and take the test.
As to the "test"

IMHO , it's not really a test per se , because they outright give you the answers, have you sign on to knowing the answers, and then your given a certificate proving you know the rules.

It's done this way so that in the future, if it's required, they can prove you know the rules and signed an agreement to follow the rules.

Last edited by init4fun; 09-14-2021 at 01:55 PM.
Old 09-14-2021, 02:09 PM
  #319  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Incidentally, Race Day Quad's FAA Remote ID lawsuit is back on.
https://jrupprechtlaw.com/racedayqua...n-regulations/

Ruprect Law has scant information on RC cases lost, but my guess is their first petition for a review got a quick dunk.
I don't see the whole thing being thrown out now either, but their argument makes for an interesting read:
Attached Files
Old 09-14-2021, 02:22 PM
  #320  
BarracudaHockey
My Feedback: (11)
 
BarracudaHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 25,201
Received 152 Likes on 123 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ECHO24 View Post
The guy who came close to hitting the Airbus with his drone over McCarren airport, the FAA let him off scot-free.

Under the new World Order, though, non-compliance with an administrative rule is now a terrorist act.

Maybe I will register and take the test.
I did emphasize that the FAA is biased toward education rather than enforcement, they would much rather send you a letter than knock down your door.

The guy that hit the Blackhawk during a TFR got squat too, and IMO the FAA may be creating their own problem. I personally have sent them a bevy of videos of one (non AMA member!) that is walking all over the rules and thumbing his nose at the FAA in his videos and they sent him a letter, he changed the name of his YouTube channel from his name's FPV to "nobody's FPV" or some such and kept right on doing it. In a call with the regional UAS office they say they can't prove it unless they catch him doing it which they don't have the manpower to do. And he's doing stuff that makes me cringe.

I can tell you this though, when someone pushes them to enforcement it won't be pretty.
Old 09-14-2021, 04:30 PM
  #321  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by BarracudaHockey View Post
I can tell you this though, when someone pushes them to enforcement it won't be pretty.
Yeah, right. like flying a drone near an airliner - and posting it on YouTube! - isn't enough to "push the FAA to enforcement". They declined to
prosecute the McCarren guy because he said someone named "Frank" I think it was, no last name, was flying the drone. Like a hit and run where
the culprit dashes away and when caught says someone else was driving the car. The drone guy's story would have lasted 2 seconds in court.

Kind of a curious statement. Barracuda Hockey lists several egregious violations where the FAA just blew off any enforcement action.
Then says, to the effect, "The FAA is sure going to crack down on somebody one of these days". Who might that be?

Last edited by ECHO24; 09-14-2021 at 09:17 PM.
Old 09-15-2021, 02:50 AM
  #322  
BarracudaHockey
My Feedback: (11)
 
BarracudaHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 25,201
Received 152 Likes on 123 Posts
Default

I mean, that's a good question. I do think at some point they are going to be pushed into a corner and when that happens it won't be pretty.

Just my .02 whatever that's worth
Old 09-15-2021, 05:33 AM
  #323  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by BarracudaHockey View Post
I mean, that's a good question. I do think at some point they are going to be pushed into a corner and when that happens it won't be pretty.

Just my .02 whatever that's worth
The FAA also does not need to physically "catch them in the act", as with the McCarren guy and their most famous case,
Trappy, to bring an enforcement action. Most of these guys give a full confession in their YouTube videos. The McCarren
guy they had red handed with local police also ready to charge him, them let him walk away. Less work.
Old 09-15-2021, 05:40 AM
  #324  
aymodeler
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (3)
 
aymodeler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ECHO24 View Post
Incidentally, Race Day Quad's FAA Remote ID lawsuit is back on.
https://jrupprechtlaw.com/racedayqua...n-regulations/

Ruprect Law has scant information on RC cases lost, but my guess is their first petition for a review got a quick dunk.
I don't see the whole thing being thrown out now either, but their argument makes for an interesting read:
It does appear that they have polished this up a bit into something more thoroughly thought through. 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.
Old 09-15-2021, 03:21 PM
  #325  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by aymodeler View Post
It does appear that they have polished this up a bit into something more thoroughly thought through. 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.
There are two basic arguments, (1) the FAA had meetings outside the NPRM process, and (2) the final rule is more about
identifying and reporting UAS traffic to authorities than air traffic management.

On the meetings my guess is the FAA has plenty of lawyers advising on what is or not in the scope of FAA's authority. On the
second, I'd have to read it again but I think the 2018 bill mandating Remote ID says that the primary purpose of Remote ID,
apart from the generic "integrating UAS into the national airspace system", is national security.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.