franklin_m

Don't disagree. The risk I see is that's how bad information propagates. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out. Courts define curtilage ends on a case-by-case basis. For example, I listened to a SCOTUS case where they were determining whether a tarp covered motorcycle parked in view next to a house was within curtilage, entirely outside it, or if not within curtilage, did the presence of the tarp change the definition.

The other thing the court could do is to punt on the issue. Leave the rule in tact, but rather than issue a broad ruling, say that determination of whether a particular search is illegal or not is a trial matter to determine based on the specific facts of each case - which would actually align with how courts do it now.

aymodeler

My Feedback: (3)

While I totally agree that we should not be pushing for a rewrite, why do you suggest that the AMA is seeking another "bite at the apple"? This is all about RDQ having their panties in a bunch.

What especially bugs me about this is that when you dig into what the quad/FPV community really is upset about, it's the inability to operate BVLOS, which has absolutely nothing to do with RID! Even if they get RID in any and all forms declared unconstitutional (which will not happen) and have the RID rule tossed with no chance of being revived (which also won't happen), they still will not be able to fly BVLOS or FPV without a spotter!

franklin_m

What I was trying to say is that AMA should hope that RDQ is not successful in their effort to get the rule thrown out. That would allow FAA to take another bite at the apple, along with all those security and law enforcement groups.

As for the BVLOS, I don't recall that restrictions on this are part of the rule.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

He's saying we (the AMA) would want the rule as is, that if the FAA gets a re-write it will likely be worse. (at least that's what I believe he is saying) and if that is accurate, I agree, if this gets throw out and goes back through the process it may not end well for us. (my personal opinion)

franklin_m

Yes, that is what I was trying to convey. I wonder how much of a rewrite the court could order w/o the need to go back through the comment process. Given this is the very same court that would be the venue for any challenges based on the administrative procedures law, what should REALLY scare AMA is the court craft a ruling that allows FAA significant rewrite w/o going back through comment period!

As I said in my first post ... be careful what you wish for!

aymodeler

My Feedback: (3)

Total agreement. I don't think anyone in the hobby (AMA or not) really wants to give the FAA an opportunity for a rewrite!

That's exactly my point!!! Peel back the onion when you talk to anyone in the quad community and its not the actual RID requirement that they are most concerned with, it is the requirement that recreational UAS be operated VLOS. Lets face it, flying a flight stabilized quad VLOS at the club field would be pretty boring. They want to fly in and around trees, over buildings, under bridges. They want to run FPV races. They want to to take photos from vantage points that would be otherwise inaccessible. None of which they can legally do. But going after RID doesn't help them at all!

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Without the RID, I would compel that the FPV guys would simply fly FPV as they wish, knowing that there are precious few resources for actual enforcement.

Astro

aymodeler

My Feedback: (3)

I will concede that if RID was to simply disappear, the FPV crowd could potentially continue to operate under the radar (so to speak), but they still would be susceptible to prosecution and sooner or later, there will likely to be an effort to make an "example" out of someone (or two or three). Realistically, even with RID, the chances of getting caught are low unless you are in blatant violation due to those same resource limitation you mention.

I guess my point is, instead of chasing after RID, they should be lobbying for a set of conditions in which BVLOS/FPV is acceptable. For example, something that is the equivalent of a FRIA for FPV races or possibly an exception for FPV below a certain weight limit flown below treetop level on private property. In fact, I would go so far as to argue that they would have a greater chance of getting such exceptions if they embraced RID as a way of helping to demonstrate that they are compliant with such limitations and not using their drone to peep on their neighbor's daughter taking a shower.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

It’s not likely to happen that way as it would be difficult to make exemptions for some FPV and autonomous-capable craft and not others.

The whole FPV/autonomous thing is what ultimately caused the Feds to feel the need to regulate RC in the first place. It is why I believe the AMA made a big mistake when they chose to romance drones.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

I’m wondering how the loss of most of the commercial interests in drone delivery and the huge decrease in FAA registration is going to play into this if at all. Both IMO are clear indicators that drone population in the NAS is not anywhere near what was anticipated. I agree that a rewrite has higher odds of doing more harm then good. Of course the end result may not matter as the FAA does not and most likely will not have the infrastructure to enforce anything. They will only have more prosecution power when somebody screws up.

ElectriMan

There is conflicting information regarding drone proliferation. In one news story the commercial drone delivery is failing in another it reports growth. In the recording of the court proceedings the FAA attorney says it’s growing at a level that is hard to control (my paraphrase). Of course commercial and recreational flying are totally different but the FAA still wants us all in the same bin.

If there is a rewrite I can’t imagine that they will separate the hobbyist unless they simply restrict us even more than it already is.

franklin_m

I think there's a myopic focus on the delivery industry by some, but that is far from the full picture. For one, just because Amazon's effort hasn't panned out (yet), Google is rapidly perfecting the technology - just not here. You can bet that once they do, it'll expand to the US. But deliver only focus ignores the wide variety of other uses - all of which will put demands on the airspace here and around the world. These two investment sites point to somewhere between $10 billion and $15 billion globally.

https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com...l-drone-market

https://www.interactanalysis.com/com...r-predictions/

It'll be interesting to see if the various ICAO nations gradually work toward harmonizing their drone regulations and operational restrictions to make it easier for designers, operators, and regulators.

paulsf86

My Feedback: (52)

We would all be a lot better of if you guys would shut up stop stirring the pot and stop feeding your own egos by trying to convince people that you really know what you are talking about. Your opinions are meaningless and only show your total disregard for the hobby that most of us appreciate and support. Your continued diarrhea of the mouth only shows how stupid you really are when it comes to protecting our hobby. If you think that FAA and others are not reading these threads you are only further exposing your ignorance.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Sounds like you are in the know. What is your opinion and why does it hold any more merit than others'?

Astro

aymodeler

My Feedback: (3)

Thanks for giving me something to laugh at this morning

I don't disagree that most of what gets posted anywhere and everywhere on the internet (not just here) is about as valuable as 'diarrhea', but if people stopped spouting off their nonsense opinions, then the whole internet economy would collapse, tech stocks would crash, and all of our retirement accounts would be destroyed!!!

franklin_m

First, some of us have actually worked at the state and federal level to inform decision makers and make changes to policy and law. So that means we do in fact know what we're talking about.

Second, given they have huge staffs of analysts and other experts, I'd argue the investment analysis above both know what they're talking about.

Third, "disregard for the hobby" is your opinion. Just because some of us see the bigger picture, and understand that times change and the hobby may now need to fit into a larger ecosystem of law and regulation -- does not mean we have disregard for the hobby. It makes us realists.

Fourth. If you indeed believe FAA is reading these, what we're saying is the LEAST of your worries. I'd be much more concerned about the plethora of comments on this site, RCG, and others where members of AMA are proudly talking about ignoring FAA rules.

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

What goalposts I simply made comment that one only had your word nothing else to back up your claim and you provided two and only two. Then you go on to claim several others again your word only and no proof. At that point I reflected on the value and resulting actions for the membership. Take for instance the membership reduction for certain members of the military. The first thing you do is resort to blaming the lack of action solely on the AMA. Well it looks like the two parties could not come to a workable agreement. May I remind you that recommendations that are accepted by majority may or may not end up being workable and are not required to be implemented. By any chance do you know how many AMA members this reduction in dues would effect? I have no idea but you might know how much the reduction would be per qualified member.

The second part the FAA registration. The AMA was only petitioning the FAA to use the AMA number instead of having to apply and register/pay an additional tax. You claim sole responsibility for getting this squashed. I cannot find anywhere in that proposal a requirement that required all non members to become AMA members. It was simply the AMA asking for an exemption for its members. It would have not changed a thing for non AMA members, they would have paid their 5 dollars to register and had to pass the trust test to fly. By your actions you have increased the cost by $5 for every AMA member and extended government overreach. I bet it went a long way to pave the way for further exemptions the AMA may ask. I wonder how much more of your meddling will end up costing each and every AMA member?

ECHO24

Propworn dips over the border occasionally to keep his troll license current. For as much as any of this concerns him he might as well be in Uzbekistan.

franklin_m

As someone with colleagues in Uzbekistan, I'd be happy to arrange for a warm welcome.

ECHO24

I'm not aware of him posting anything useful for RC or even an original thought. I've only seen him troll other people's posts.

Hydro Junkie

Isn't that the calling card of a troll, a waste of bandwidth? I'll be the first to admit I don't always get information in my posts correct but at least I try to contribute something

flyboy2610

My Feedback: (1)

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

heheheh, even sorta looks canadian...

ECHO24

(If anyone has forgotten this is about RaceDayQuad's BIG BIG lawsuit against the FAA)

Jonathan Rupprecht's website shows "Court Opinion Published" but no date or link, with the last activity with a date being oral arguments
on 12/15/2021 (note that he never posts negative decisions). A search turns up nothing, not even on RDQ's website which shows their latest
update as a Forbes article on 10/5/2021. RDQ doesn't even list the oral arguments in December.

One thing jumped out: "8/4/21: I'm proud to announce we've officially filed our 14,000+ word argument against RemoteID. " Who knew
model airplane flying would someday need a 14,000 word lawsuit (and proud of it!). We all fly drones now.