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

RDQ & RemoteID: Appeals Court Decision

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

RDQ & RemoteID: Appeals Court Decision

Old 07-30-2022, 04:25 AM
  #1  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,091
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default RDQ & RemoteID: Appeals Court Decision

Race Day Quads / Tyler Brennan challenged the Remote ID rule in the DC Circuit Federal Appeals Court. Brennan's case was argued by Jonathan Rupprect as lead attorney. The DC Circuit published their decision and it's available at the link provided below (note 1).

In short, they lost across the board. What's interesting is when you read the opinion, it's pretty evident the court took a dim view of the filing. Here's an example of some of the rather blunt responses by the court to the arguments & filings (emphasis added is mine):

  • Brennan asserts that the Rule’s Remote ID requirement amounts to constant, warrantless governmental surveillance in violation of the Fourth Amendment. His request for vacatur of the Rule, amounting to a facial challenge, must fail because drones are virtually always flown in public. Requiring a drone to show its location and that of its operator while the drone is aloft in the open air violates no reasonable expectation of privacy ... It is hard to see what could be private about flying a drone in the open air.
  • Brennan hypothesizes that law enforcement authorities could use Remote ID to carry out continuous surveillance of drone pilots’ public locations amounting to a constitutionally cognizable search, or that the Rule could be applied in ways that would reveal an operator’s identity and location at a home or in an otherwise private place. But he has not shown that any such uses of Remote ID have either harmed him or imminently will do so, thus he presents no currently justiciable, as-applied challenge.
  • Brennan also claims that the Remote ID Rule must be vacated due to various procedural missteps he believes the FAA made in promulgating it. But none of those asserted flaws affects the validity of the Rule. The communications that Brennan challenges as ex parte did not materially bear on the rulemaking, so their exclusion from the administrative record did not interfere with the requisite opportunity for public comment.
  • Brennan faults the FAA for not adequately addressing certain comments, but the FAA need not respond to purely speculative comments, and its consideration of about 53,000 public comments and detailed explanation of the policy choices in the Final Rule fully met its obligation under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

My Opinion: Unfortunately, the challenge offered a Federal Court to go on record affirming the risk drones (which for these purposes include model aircraft) pose to the public. There was a state court in Pennsylvania that explicitly stated that the size and speed of model aircraft are such that they pose a significant risk to the public (paraphrase). Now a Federal court is saying much the same. And any attorney worth their salt will easily be able to find and cite both as precedent in an injury / insurance filing. So I believe the combination of continued lack of discipline in operations, when combined with a handful of bad actors, and weak filings like this case will create a legal paper trail that can be used against others. And it's not hard to imagine that paper trail growing, with each case reinforcing and repeating the risk stated in earlier cases. Example: Non-remote ID model aircraft operating at FRIA loses link and crashes outside the land controlled by the CBO, causing damage. Attorney for the injured party (injured as in damaged property) will now have not one but two cases to show that the CBO & operators knew or should have known. They win. That creates a third case. Etc.


Note 1: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/55807FB471B60BB08525888E0051AEA6/$file/21-1087-1956978.pdf
Old 07-30-2022, 06:12 AM
  #2  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
Race Day Quads / Tyler Brennan challenged the Remote ID rule in the DC Circuit Federal Appeals Court. Brennan's case was argued by Jonathan Rupprect as lead attorney. The DC Circuit published their decision and it's available at the link provided below (note 1).

In short, they lost across the board. What's interesting is when you read the opinion, it's pretty evident the court took a dim view of the filing. Here's an example of some of the rather blunt responses by the court to the arguments & filings (emphasis added is mine):
  • Brennan asserts that the Rule’s Remote ID requirement amounts to constant, warrantless governmental surveillance in violation of the Fourth Amendment. His request for vacatur of the Rule, amounting to a facial challenge, must fail because drones are virtually always flown in public. Requiring a drone to show its location and that of its operator while the drone is aloft in the open air violates no reasonable expectation of privacy ... It is hard to see what could be private about flying a drone in the open air.
  • Brennan hypothesizes that law enforcement authorities could use Remote ID to carry out continuous surveillance of drone pilots’ public locations amounting to a constitutionally cognizable search, or that the Rule could be applied in ways that would reveal an operator’s identity and location at a home or in an otherwise private place. But he has not shown that any such uses of Remote ID have either harmed him or imminently will do so, thus he presents no currently justiciable, as-applied challenge.
  • Brennan also claims that the Remote ID Rule must be vacated due to various procedural missteps he believes the FAA made in promulgating it. But none of those asserted flaws affects the validity of the Rule. The communications that Brennan challenges as ex parte did not materially bear on the rulemaking, so their exclusion from the administrative record did not interfere with the requisite opportunity for public comment.
  • Brennan faults the FAA for not adequately addressing certain comments, but the FAA need not respond to purely speculative comments, and its consideration of about 53,000 public comments and detailed explanation of the policy choices in the Final Rule fully met its obligation under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

My Opinion: Unfortunately, the challenge offered a Federal Court to go on record affirming the risk drones (which for these purposes include model aircraft) pose to the public. There was a state court in Pennsylvania that explicitly stated that the size and speed of model aircraft are such that they pose a significant risk to the public (paraphrase). Now a Federal court is saying much the same. And any attorney worth their salt will easily be able to find and cite both as precedent in an injury / insurance filing. So I believe the combination of continued lack of discipline in operations, when combined with a handful of bad actors, and weak filings like this case will create a legal paper trail that can be used against others. And it's not hard to imagine that paper trail growing, with each case reinforcing and repeating the risk stated in earlier cases. Example: Non-remote ID model aircraft operating at FRIA loses link and crashes outside the land controlled by the CBO, causing damage. Attorney for the injured party (injured as in damaged property) will now have not one but two cases to show that the CBO & operators knew or should have known. They win. That creates a third case. Etc.


Note 1: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/55807FB471B60BB08525888E0051AEA6/$file/21-1087-1956978.pdf
When this goes into effect it will be illegal to fly anywhere except at an AMA field without Remote ID. The question is, how many people will
be grounded? How many AMA members actually belong to a club, 1 in 4? How many fly here and there? How many drone owners joined AMA
just for the insurance? Out of the total RC population how many belong to a club, 1 in 10?

This is going to wipe out RC flying.
Old 07-30-2022, 09:19 AM
  #3  
BarracudaHockey
My Feedback: (11)
 
BarracudaHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 25,805
Received 210 Likes on 169 Posts
Default

Why do you say that it's going to wipe out RC flying?

Compliance will likely be a small module that you can swap from plane to plane if not built into most receivers.
Old 07-30-2022, 10:17 AM
  #4  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by BarracudaHockey View Post
Why do you say that it's going to wipe out RC flying?

Compliance will likely be a small module that you can swap from plane to plane if not built into most receivers.
Here is Horizon Hobby's page on Remote ID on 1/21/21, a year and a half ago. It has not been updated since:
https://www.horizonhobby.com/blog-faa-id.html

Horizon stated they planned on having Remote ID products around this September, a month from now and about a year before it goes into effect. Then
nothing. I don't find anything on Horizon or anywhere else about modules for RC planes, only certain drones that already have most of the electronics, and
then only hypothetically that they will be available. If you know of any source for RC planes post where they can be found or when they will be available.

In any case, at some point the FAA is intent on all UAS having integrated, tamperproof Remote ID built in, such that the aircraft will not take off without it
enabled. That is not possible for RC planes. All someone would have to do to defeat it is switch out whatever component it is with a regular receiver. You
can't do that with drones. The FAA's definition of obsolescence (it's in the NPRM) I think is 3 years, but they can issue any rule at any time.

Another point. There are open places to fly RC where it might not technically be approved but no one really cares. All that will change with Remote ID and a
smart phone app for anyone to report it. Every square inch is owned or managed by someone, and all it takes is one complaint. I don't think you appreciate
what a big deal this is going to be for bringing new people, or how many of the current crop of 60+ year-olds first got into RC flying other than an at AMA field.

Recall your threatening post to me about the federal fines and jail time for not registering (it wasn't in the US I was talking about, incidentally). That's what
RC flying has turned into. And you are a senior representative speaking on behalf of AMA. Good luck with all that.
Old 07-30-2022, 10:59 AM
  #5  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,091
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by BarracudaHockey View Post
Why do you say that it's going to wipe out RC flying?

Compliance will likely be a small module that you can swap from plane to plane if not built into most receivers.
Every obstacle one puts in place to do something, the less likely people are to do it. I realize it's AMA's w*t dream to try and force all flying to AMA clubs, but that will make it even harder to fly (distance, cost, and regular topic in MA - less than welcoming clubs), hence even fewer people. History shows that every time you guys raise dues, within a very short time AMA's inflation adjusted revenue is lower than it was before the hike. And ... wait for it ... AMA just raised dues again. So my recommendation is that AMA better start figuring out how to survive on the revenue from turbine flyers, the LMA crowd, and those who are in it for the social aspect. They're the only ones that truly 'need' the AMA field. My prediction is before too long, they'll be the only ones willing to pay for it. And even many of them will choose something else as you guys keep raising dues for little in the way of tangible benefit.

Last edited by franklin_m; 07-31-2022 at 03:13 AM.
Old 07-30-2022, 08:03 PM
  #6  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Around the various forums the bomb has dropped.
The PDF is easier to read.

Attached Files
File Type: pdf
rdq VS. faa.pdf (328.3 KB, 16 views)
Old 07-31-2022, 10:04 AM
  #7  
flyboy2610
My Feedback: (1)
 
flyboy2610's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lincoln, NE
Posts: 631
Received 24 Likes on 19 Posts
Default

From the linked PDF:

"7

Errant drone flights are not unusual: In 2019, the FAA
alone received an average of six reports daily from people who
claimed to have witnessed unauthorized drone operations.
Proposed Rule, 84 Fed. Reg. at 72,455. The FAA has noted
the potential use of drones for illegal activities, including
“carrying and smuggling of controlled substances, illicit drugs,
and other dangerous or hazardous payloads; the unlawful
invasion of privacy; illegal surveillance and reconnaissance;
the weaponization of [drones]; sabotaging of critical
infrastructure; property theft; disruption; and harassment.” Id.
at 72,454. Extremists have increasingly sought to use drones
to carry out violent attacks: Terrorists killed several people by
detonating a bomb carried by a drone that flew above a military
parade in Yemen. Id. at 72,455 & n.34.2 The Islamic State and
other terrorist organizations have reportedly modified
commercially available drones so they can carry and release
munitions and explosives. Id. at 72,455 & n.31.3 A would-be
assassin used a drone to target then-President Nicolás Maduro
in Venezuela. Id. at 72,455 & n.32.4 And British intelligence
agencies uncovered a terrorist plan to fly drones into the
engines of commercial airplanes as they took off from airports
in the United Kingdom. Id. at 72,455 & n.33.5"

Don't you all feel so much better now, knowing that criminals and terrorists will have to register their drones?
Old 08-01-2022, 06:23 AM
  #8  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 8,779
Received 139 Likes on 121 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by flyboy2610 View Post
From the linked PDF:

"7

Errant drone flights are not unusual: In 2019, the FAA
alone received an average of six reports daily from people who
claimed to have witnessed unauthorized drone operations.
Proposed Rule, 84 Fed. Reg. at 72,455. The FAA has noted
the potential use of drones for illegal activities, including
“carrying and smuggling of controlled substances, illicit drugs,
and other dangerous or hazardous payloads; the unlawful
invasion of privacy; illegal surveillance and reconnaissance;
the weaponization of [drones]; sabotaging of critical
infrastructure; property theft; disruption; and harassment.” Id.
at 72,454. Extremists have increasingly sought to use drones
to carry out violent attacks: Terrorists killed several people by
detonating a bomb carried by a drone that flew above a military
parade in Yemen. Id. at 72,455 & n.34.2 The Islamic State and
other terrorist organizations have reportedly modified
commercially available drones so they can carry and release
munitions and explosives. Id. at 72,455 & n.31.3 A would-be
assassin used a drone to target then-President Nicolás Maduro
in Venezuela. Id. at 72,455 & n.32.4 And British intelligence
agencies uncovered a terrorist plan to fly drones into the
engines of commercial airplanes as they took off from airports
in the United Kingdom. Id. at 72,455 & n.33.5"

Don't you all feel so much better now, knowing that criminals and terrorists will have to register their drones?


Exactly, this is going to have the same effect as gun control, in other words ZERO impact on those who want to use them to do harm. I like the opening line……The Drones are coming. We have already seen a massive drop in FAA registration renewals and a fair number of drone delivery ventures fail abandoned.
Old 08-01-2022, 10:22 AM
  #9  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by BarracudaHockey View Post
Why do you say that it's going to wipe out RC flying?

Compliance will likely be a small module that you can swap from plane to plane if not built into most receivers.
No problem for drones. They sell in the millions and the electronics are already there. I sent emails to half a dozen various RC radio
manufacturers, Spektrum, Futaba, Jeti, FrSky, Airtronics, etc., asking if they planed to sell Remote ID modules. Not very encouraging
that none of them at present list anything at all on Remote ID. Seems just as "likely" the aftermarket will abandon that segment of the
hobby and leave AMA with their monopoly. It all depends on the size of the market

A guestimate of AMA members belonging to clubs, if the numbers can be trusted, is 60,000, the first 90 clubs averaging 25 members,
times 2,394 clubs listed on AMA's website. Even at face value, minus those inactive/marginally active, that's a pretty small number.




Last edited by ECHO24; 08-01-2022 at 10:36 AM.
Old 08-01-2022, 11:48 AM
  #10  
mongo
My Feedback: (15)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 3,140
Received 47 Likes on 39 Posts
Default

and does not factor in those with multiple club memberships...
Old 08-01-2022, 11:52 AM
  #11  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 8,779
Received 139 Likes on 121 Posts
Default

Nor does it represent clubs with larger membership. All 4 clubs that I have membership are 45+ active members. There will always be a core group that will maintain membership.
Old 08-01-2022, 12:22 PM
  #12  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

It also means the other 55,000 AMA members (if even that number is accurate) won't be flying anymore unless it's sub-250 gram.
Old 08-01-2022, 12:35 PM
  #13  
BarracudaHockey
My Feedback: (11)
 
BarracudaHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 25,805
Received 210 Likes on 169 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ECHO24 View Post
It also means the other 55,000 AMA members (if even that number is accurate) won't be flying anymore unless it's sub-250 gram.
modules dude, I told you this before.
Because you don't see a market doesn't mean there won't be modules.
Old 08-01-2022, 01:23 PM
  #14  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Maricopa County AZ
Posts: 3,225
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

The FAA was wrong to try and implement remote ID requirements before any such devices are widely available, such devices need to be available to the RC community so they can be tested before expecting
RC flyers to want to use them.
Old 08-01-2022, 02:37 PM
  #15  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,126
Received 121 Likes on 115 Posts
Default

The module issue is, in many ways, similar to the issues that were found when Spectrum first put the frequency hopping radio system on the market. There were serious issues with the surface systems, so many that they had to be taken off the market as claims came in about boats and cars being damaged or wrecked due to system issues due to insufficient testing in their rush to get their product into the market. I was a witness to such an event when a brand new scale 1980 Miss Budweiser was wrecked due to radio issues due to being used over water. The system had been range checked with the transmitter still giving an effective signal at close to 100 yards away OVER LAND. After recovering the boat, it was found the radio worked fine when range checked again, OVER LAND. Since the radio box was undamaged and could be removed from the boat, it was taken out of the now destroyed hull and taken out onto the lake on one of the chase boats. With one person operating the chase boat, a second was holding the radio box just above the water over the bow. The chase boat was backed away from the shore and out into the lake, at first with no issues. At roughly 25 yards out and 40 yards from the drivers stand, where the transmitter was being operated, the receiver started to glitch. Servos that had previously moved stop to stop now stuttered and stalled mid swing and, as the boat got further way, it got progressively worse. The result was the receivers got redesigned and, IIRC, the protocols were updated. I see the same thing happening with the modules IF they aren't given adequate R&D time before they are put on the market since planes are flown from grass, concrete, blacktop, water and snow. Some fields are surrounded with trees, others with hills or mountains so, it is possible that the modules may not work as intended
Old 08-01-2022, 04:04 PM
  #16  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by BarracudaHockey View Post
modules dude, I told you this before.
Because you don't see a market doesn't mean there won't be modules.
"dude" I was just trying to make an educated guess. You're on the inside and don't know anything about it either, other than your opinion
that it's "likely" modules are coming. That and $1.25 will buy you a sheet of Dollar Tree foam.

Like I said, not very encouraging that not even one of the RC radio manufacturers has anything to say about Remote ID at all (other than that
1 1/2 year-old Horizon Hobby page) much less any announcement that they are working on it. This has been in the works for a long, long time.
Old 08-01-2022, 04:33 PM
  #17  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 8,779
Received 139 Likes on 121 Posts
Default

Makes one wonder if it’s not intentional. What is the FAA going to do if nobody makes RFID modules? Kinda hard to force people to use what doesn’t exist.

As for Hydro’s post. Who cares how well they work. The requirements are that we install one, if it doesn’t work because of poor design oh well.
Old 08-01-2022, 06:12 PM
  #18  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,126
Received 121 Likes on 115 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
Makes one wonder if it’s not intentional. What is the FAA going to do if nobody makes RFID modules? Kinda hard to force people to use what doesn’t exist.

As for Hydro’s post. Who cares how well they work. The requirements are that we install one, if it doesn’t work because of poor design oh well.
That's like saying, when a judge tells a drunk to have a breathalyzer installed on his vehicle to get his license back, "If it doesn't work, who cares?" The person that will care is the one that is hit by the drunk when he gets in his vehicle and drives off, drunk as a skunk, because the unit didn't kill the vehicles ignition. The same thing could happen when someone installs a module in their plane and it doesn't work, then they get arrested when someone else's module says they are flying someplace they aren't due to the other person's malfunctioning unit saying they are there when it's the second that is flying in that location. What about programming the information in said module? Does the user get to program it or is it done at the factory? Then, one malfunctions and is returned, repaired and sent out again, to the wrong address. Now what happens?
Old 08-01-2022, 06:15 PM
  #19  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 8,779
Received 139 Likes on 121 Posts
Default

You have quite the imagination Hydro, I’ll give you credit for that.
Old 08-01-2022, 06:25 PM
  #20  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I ran across a comment that sums up where this is all headed:

"Some local RC fliers would meet down at some local soccer fields to fly our models and chew the fat. Two years ago those fields
were deemed off limits for our use by the county, so says the youth soccer organization. Finger pointing in both directs. The alternative
was to join a flying club, pay their membership dues, be a member in good standing after paying AMA yearly dues, and fly at a low use
air strip 15 miles away. Last year that club introduced new and more restrictive rules. Electrics of up to1lb. could fly at an adjacent field
to the strip, all other craft, electric over 1lb. would have to use the strip, taking turns in the order that you walked up in. Then too, flying
in the adjacent field there were borders on both sides so as to not infringe on other fliers and some houses on the other side. I found it
all distasteful and really sapped the fun we used to have. None of us fly FPV, always keep our craft in sight and behaved. We have been
punished. I may hang it up."

Last year I was flying a glider on a nearly deserted beach in Oregon. I turned north to set up for landing then turned back south. Somehow
in that short time, on this deserted beach, there's now a guy with a metal detector walking north, halfway to the water right where I am set
to land. Committed (a glider) I moved over toward the water and landed in the scud and foam just a few feet away from him.

As I walked up the guy, all excited, said, "A drone came out of nowhere!"

If I didn't spend half the year in Mexico I'd hang it up too.
Old 08-01-2022, 07:46 PM
  #21  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,126
Received 121 Likes on 115 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
You have quite the imagination Hydro, I’ll give you credit for that.
It has nothing to do with imagination. It has to do with the reality of the situation and certain people's inability to comprehend what's going on in the here and now
It also shows how someone just doesn't get the fact that the FAA is going to have the final say and when the modules become available, THEY WILL BE USED AND WILL BE REQUIRED TO WORK
Old 08-01-2022, 08:04 PM
  #22  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 8,779
Received 139 Likes on 121 Posts
Default

It also states that the modules will be tamper proof. So I plug it in and it should do it’s thing. If the scenario that you fabricated is indeed realistic, does it not add value to joining the AMA and flying at a FRIA? Either way makes no difference to me as I will be flying ar a FRIA, been at least 10 years since I’ve flown at a place other then a club site. IMO it’s not safe to fly in an uncontrolled environment.
Old 08-01-2022, 09:16 PM
  #23  
mongo
My Feedback: (15)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 3,140
Received 47 Likes on 39 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
Makes one wonder if it’s not intentional. What is the FAA going to do if nobody makes RFID modules? Kinda hard to force people to use what doesn’t exist.

As for Hydro’s post. Who cares how well they work. The requirements are that we install one, if it doesn’t work because of poor design oh well.
ahh, but it is very easy to force them to not fly at all.

which is the probably very high on the FAA agenda.
Old 08-01-2022, 10:03 PM
  #24  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,126
Received 121 Likes on 115 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
It also states that the modules will be tamper proof. So I plug it in and it should do it’s thing. If the scenario that you fabricated is indeed realistic, does it not add value to joining the AMA and flying at a FRIA? Either way makes no difference to me as I will be flying ar a FRIA, been at least 10 years since I’ve flown at a place other then a club site. IMO it’s not safe to fly in an uncontrolled environment.
Like a club environment is safe. There are several videos out there that say just the opposite. Let's think back a year or four to the onboard camera showing a jet flying
  • over a freeway interchange
  • at well over legal altitudes
  • taxiing in areas that were clearly posted as no power zones
and not one person said a word about the rules and safety plan violations. Looked really safe to me, so much so I would never fly there

When we run boats, WE DO FOLLOW ALL SAFETY RULES
  • IF ANYONE OR THEIR PET GETS TOO CLOSE TO THE WATER, WE SHUT THE BOATS DOWN
  • IF A MANNED BOAT/CANOE/KAYAK ENTERS THE AREA, WE SHUT THE BOATS DOWN
  • IF SOMEONE IS DRIVING IN AN UNSAFE MANNER, THEY ARE TOLD TO EITHER BRING IT IN OR PUT IT IN THE INFIELD AND SHUT IT DOWN
  • IF A BOAT HAS SOMETHING UNSAFE, SUCH AS A LOOSE RUDDER ASSEMBLY OR STRUT, FLOPPY TURN FIN, PARTS THAT COULD FLY OFF THE BOAT, ETC, IT WON'T BE ALLOWED TO RUN UNTIL THE ISSUE(S) IS/ARE FIXED AND VERIFIED BY A BOARD MEMBER
  • IF SOMEONE CREATES AN UNSAFE SITUATION, THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO RUN AGAIN UNTIL THE SITUATION IS CORRECTED
  • IF SOMEONE INSTIGATES A SITUATION WITH OTHERS THAT IS CONSIDERED UNSPORTSMANLIKE, THEY ARE TALKED TO AND, IF THEY CONTINUE, THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO RUN UNTIL THEY HAVE HAD PLENTY OF TIME TO COOL OFF. THE TIME IS DETERMINED BY THE BOARD MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE AND COULD BE PERMANENT IF THE SITUATION IS BAD ENOUGH
Just for the record, none of the above is negotiable. Violations are considered to be very serious, so much so that it can result in suspension or expulsion from the club. When I had rudder issues a week ago, I wasn't allowed to run my boat again until I had it repaired, inspected and cleared by a club officer. Had I launched my boat with an unsafe rudder, it could have cost me my driving privileges, my boat's registration and my membership in the club. Now, have you ever seen that at a flying club?

Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 08-01-2022 at 10:26 PM.
Old 08-01-2022, 11:06 PM
  #25  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mongo View Post
ahh, but it is very easy to force them to not fly at all.

which is the probably very high on the FAA agenda.
Maybe not so much that.

In the Final Rule the rational for Remote ID modules isn't for legacy model aircraft it's it's for drones: [FRIA's] "would not provide
sufficient capacity to accommodate operations of hundreds of thousands of current UAS that would not be permitted to fly elsewhere"...
[Remote ID modules] "which reduces the need to operate at FAA-recognized identification areas."

In the Final Rule much of it is qualified by "at this time". If modules do become available they will be history as soon as the FAA deems
those drones obsolete. Model aircraft are an anachronism. The FAA no longer even acknowledges them.

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.