Franklin's Big Chance
09-20-2023, 03:41 PM
#3
Senior Member
Thread Starter
09-22-2023, 07:20 AM
#10
09-22-2023, 10:19 AM
#11
Last edited by speedracerntrixie; 09-22-2023 at 10:21 AM.
09-22-2023, 11:05 AM
#13
Senior Member
Hey franklin, here's some better bait. You are responsible for that FAA letter demolishing AMA's forced membership scheme. With your gov witness experience you are the natural choice to bring up FAA's "unable to comply" gambit at the FAA RID webinar, and why it does not pass muster under the Rules of Statutory Construction and Interpretation.
You could also bring up the last paragraph and ask why it misrepresents how RID works (the whole thing reads that way). I don't care about the FAA but I've already had someone try to expose my home address to the world (not speed before he furiously types back).
You could also bring up the last paragraph and ask why it misrepresents how RID works (the whole thing reads that way). I don't care about the FAA but I've already had someone try to expose my home address to the world (not speed before he furiously types back).
09-22-2023, 01:47 PM
#14
Hey franklin, here's some better bait. You are responsible for that FAA letter demolishing AMA's forced membership scheme. With your gov witness experience you are the natural choice to bring up FAA's "unable to comply" gambit at the FAA RID webinar, and why it does not pass muster under the Rules of Statutory Construction and Interpretation.
You could also bring up the last paragraph and ask why it misrepresents how RID works (the whole thing reads that way). I don't care about the FAA but I've already had someone try to expose my home address to the world (not speed before he furiously types back).
You could also bring up the last paragraph and ask why it misrepresents how RID works (the whole thing reads that way). I don't care about the FAA but I've already had someone try to expose my home address to the world (not speed before he furiously types back).
09-22-2023, 02:27 PM
#15
Senior Member
You don't have to put anyone on the spot. Just say you saw it on a discussion forum and after reading the quoted text it does appear that the FAA overstepped its authority claiming they can bring an RID action against someone without clearly defining what "unable to comply" means, for example, "Exceptions include, 1) A drone pilot does not have the financial means at this time, etc." Or, "Financial ability is not a valid reason for non-compliance." (remember, this is aimed at not just adults). As such, ... [the] enactment is void for vagueness [because] its prohibitions are not clearly defined.
Chevron or not, the FAA cannot just make it up on the fly.
(LOL, I forgot you haven't met a regulation you didn't like.)
Serve it up as a softball, "I saw this on a forum, doesn't sound right. What do you think?' "We here at the FAA are in control of all airspace down to a blade of grass. Don't believe anything that doesn't come from official FAA sources."
Tell that to John Taylor (at least on the first one, on the second he got massacred.)
What I quoted IS from the US Supreme Court, Mr. Chevron.
Like I said, the trick the FAA is using is the same the governor of New Mexico tried, the short time frame. Go ruffle some feathers. Your current law-and-order persona has you in an RC army of one.
Chevron or not, the FAA cannot just make it up on the fly.
(LOL, I forgot you haven't met a regulation you didn't like.)
Serve it up as a softball, "I saw this on a forum, doesn't sound right. What do you think?' "We here at the FAA are in control of all airspace down to a blade of grass. Don't believe anything that doesn't come from official FAA sources."
Tell that to John Taylor (at least on the first one, on the second he got massacred.)
What I quoted IS from the US Supreme Court, Mr. Chevron.
Like I said, the trick the FAA is using is the same the governor of New Mexico tried, the short time frame. Go ruffle some feathers. Your current law-and-order persona has you in an RC army of one.
Last edited by ECHO24; 09-22-2023 at 02:52 PM.
09-23-2023, 04:43 AM
#16
You don't have to put anyone on the spot. Just say you saw it on a discussion forum and after reading the quoted text it does appear that the FAA overstepped its authority claiming they can bring an RID action against someone without clearly defining what "unable to comply" means, for example, "Exceptions include, 1) A drone pilot does not have the financial means at this time, etc." Or, "Financial ability is not a valid reason for non-compliance." (remember, this is aimed at not just adults). As such, ... [the] enactment is void for vagueness [because] its prohibitions are not clearly defined.
If you want someone to help, generally doesn't help to level untrue insult when asking.
09-23-2023, 07:43 AM
#17
Senior Member
It's hyperbole genius, You are obviously not up to this. I looked and I think I can register under a pseudonym. Something has to be said. Even FAA's statement, "We will consider all circumstances". What circumstances? The FAA isn't a star chamber.
09-23-2023, 07:48 AM
#18
Senior Member
we insist that laws give the Person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited (bold and underline in original text that they considered it so important)
****
It just now occurred to me you didn't bother reading the thread. The entire 44 pages of the section are in the PDF.
"Re: "Unable to comply". I knew it was bunk when I first saw it. Now I've found it. The FAA is breaking the law by threatening to bring enforcement action against people for RID non-compliance in the interim September 16, 2023 to March 16, 2024.
Supreme Court of the United States
Rules of Statutory Construction and Interpretation
(underline and bold in original text)
It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. Vague laws offend several important values. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the Person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning.
Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. A vague law impermissibly delegates [408 US 109] basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application.
[Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408,U.S. 104 (1972)]
Does "unable to comply" mean that a person has to buy the first module available? Does unable to comply mean on the original enforcement date of September 16, 2023? Does unable to comply mean that a person cannot afford a module? And probable that a few others could be found.
This would not survive a first administrative hearing. Of course the FAA knows that, therefore it's never going to happen.
****
It just now occurred to me you didn't bother reading the thread. The entire 44 pages of the section are in the PDF.
"Re: "Unable to comply". I knew it was bunk when I first saw it. Now I've found it. The FAA is breaking the law by threatening to bring enforcement action against people for RID non-compliance in the interim September 16, 2023 to March 16, 2024.
Supreme Court of the United States
Rules of Statutory Construction and Interpretation
(underline and bold in original text)
It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. Vague laws offend several important values. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the Person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning.
Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. A vague law impermissibly delegates [408 US 109] basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application.
[Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408,U.S. 104 (1972)]
Does "unable to comply" mean that a person has to buy the first module available? Does unable to comply mean on the original enforcement date of September 16, 2023? Does unable to comply mean that a person cannot afford a module? And probable that a few others could be found.
This would not survive a first administrative hearing. Of course the FAA knows that, therefore it's never going to happen.
Last edited by ECHO24; 09-23-2023 at 08:10 AM.
09-23-2023, 08:27 AM
#19
If it's such a slam dunk, then you do it.
Last edited by franklin_m; 09-23-2023 at 08:29 AM.
09-23-2023, 09:02 AM
#20
Senior Member
"If it's such a slam dunk, then you do it". You even quoted it! "Of course the FAA knows that, therefore it's never going to happen."
The FAA is not technically "breaking the law" with the tough talk like "The FAA expects drone pilots to comply" (outside of the postponement by the way) only when they bring an action, again, not a chance in the hot place it's going to happen. Now, if someone crashed into someone or something or some other offense that got them there the FAA could tack that on but it would be the least of that person's troubles.
I sent in a question to the FAA UAS Support Center:
"The FAA issued a postponement of Remote ID until March 16, 2024, provided that person is "unable to comply". Does that mean if a person is unable to comply for financial reasons at this time?
Thank You,"
That might be the best it's going to get. Keep asking the FAA questions between now and March 16th then mock them over the answers.
