speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

My thoughts too. Better to play dumb then let the enemy know your true capabilities.

ECHO24

One reason I stay anonymous is my criticism of AMA (most of it long past) is with management not anyone below paid staff. I've enjoyed everyone I've been involved with in AMA and have never said a word in person. I didn't see myself sending a penny to AMA again but who knows. I don't see that happening now. Since you put out my general location in public I could not feel comfortable knowing that someone might know my online presence and take it personally.

It could fade away down the thread but it can't be unseen by someone who guessed where I am. You are not that far from me and you belong to 4 clubs and are pretty active here and are/were on RCGroups. RC is a small world.

ECHO24

Received my first FAA reply. Pretty much as expected and then some.

The question, "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

Like a teacher with a ruler in her hand, That is NOTcorrect. And don't make me tell you again.

*************************

UAS Support Center <[email protected]> Sep 23, 2023, 10:39 AM (1 day ago)

That is NOT correct.

Drone pilots are expected to comply with the original September 16, 2023 compliance date for Remote ID. However, the FAA understands that some drone pilots may not be able to comply because of limited availability of broadcast modules and lack of approved FAA-Recognized Identification Areas. In those instances, the FAA will consider all factors in determining whether to take enforcement action through March 16, 2024.

It's important to note that the FAA expects drone pilots to comply with the requirements of the Remote ID rule as soon as possible. Read the full policy at https://t.co/JrdkXSzxsk "

*************************

With my email in the system my next question will have me tagged. I have to decide whether to throw down the gauntlet and get it kicked up to a manager and get a double-good scolding.

This is piddly but there are higher stakes. How is the FDA pushing a bactine untested on humans under an EUA? The emergency officially ended last May. FDA made up their own. Look it up.

ECHO24

It's a canned response. "That is NOT correct." or "That is correct." It doesn't address the question. It could be a person pushing a button or AI. The text will always be the same, i.e., a complete waste of time.

I'll try one more time and see if it's like dealing with Comcast, and endless loop that keeps bringing you back to the menu.

"Remote ID has been postponed. I can't find a module to fit my application (true, I have to remove the case). Can I wait until March 16, 2024 to see if a manufacturer puts out a suitable module?"

Sent. The only change is I removed "true". I should have just left it.

Going to take a long shot, "That is PARTIALLY correct."

ECHO24

Suspicion confirmed, these are machine generated. A response to my question was sent a few hours later on a Sunday. Same text in the body. It doesn't even bother to answer the question. The chat bot hit on "postponement" same into as the first one.

"Remote ID has been postponed. I can't find a module to fit my application (I have to remove the case). Can I wait until March 16, 2024 to see if a manufacturer puts out a suitable module?"

*******************************************
UAS Support Center <[email protected]> to me 3:06 AM (5 hours ago)
Remote ID HAS NOT been postponed.

Drone pilots are expected to comply with the original September 16, 2023 compliance date for Remote ID. However, the FAA understands that some drone pilots may not be able to comply because of limited availability of broadcast modules and lack of approved FAA-Recognized Identification Areas. In those instances, the FAA will consider all factors in determining whether to take enforcement action through March 16, 2024.

It's important to note that the FAA expects drone pilots to comply with the requirements of the Remote ID rule as soon as possible. Read the full policy at https://t.co/JrdkXSzxsk

--------------- Original Message ---------------
From: [email protected] [[email][email protected]]
Sent: 9/24/2023, 11:32 PM

*******************************************
I send a 3rd question:

"FAADroneZone put out this statement: "The Remote Identification requirement for drones has been extended to March 16, 2024". I had a Remote ID module ordered and after seeing that notice I cancelled the order not wanting to have a module sitting around for 6 months. Only later did I see that the FAA saying that the extension only applies to some people. What do I do now?

Background discussion: The "unable to comply" portion of the notice is void for vagueness. It's a requirement that a rule must be clear and unambiguous to a person of ordinary intelligence. The FAA can't simply point someone to the Federal Register or add qualifications outside of a rule that can be changed, altered, added to or taken from. Similarly, the FAA can not arbitrarily bring an action after considering "all factors" without clearly stating what those factors are.

Further, FAA's position is directly contradicted by the notice referenced above from the FAADroneZone.

And finally, when an agency says they are "expecting" a particular outcome, that is an interpretation not a legal requirement.

Thank you,"

If that doesn't get kicked up to a manager nothing will.

ira d

Unless someone causes a problem by over flying areas they shouldn't or conflicting with full scale they are not likely to hear from the FAA.
But if there is a problem all bets are off as to what the FAA might do in order to show they mean business.

ECHO24

This is about arbitrary enforcement, something that doesn't resonate with AMAers who secretly think non-AMAers should be punished (for something, anything). Humor me. The world is falling apart. Might as well make the best of it.

flyboy2610

My Feedback: (1)

The DOJ does it, why shouldn't the FAA? Fair's fair, after all.

ECHO24

If I could make bot.gov say: "That IS correct. The rule is invalid Under Grayned v. City of Rockford" Now that would be a prize! #brokethefaabot

ECHO24

I'm assuming going on 3 business days now my question was kicked out to someone's desk. My second question was answered within hours. Yesterday I sent another one and it was also answered within hours. Same body again but no top line with caps and underline.

"I am unable to find a Remote Id module that fits my application. Can I wait until March 16, 2024 for modules announced by manufacturers (futaba) but that are not yet available?"

************************************************

UAS Support Center <[email protected]> tome 3:09 AM (3 hours ago)

Drone pilots are expected to comply with the original September 16, 2023 compliance date for Remote ID. However, the FAA understands that some drone pilots may not be able to comply because of limited availability of broadcast modules and lack of approved FAA-Recognized Identification Areas. In those instances, the FAA will consider all factors in determining whether to take enforcement action through March 16, 2024.

It's important to note that the FAA expects drone pilots to comply with the requirements of the Remote ID rule as soon as possible. Read the full policy at https://t.co/JrdkXSzxsk

--------------- Original Message ---------------
From: [email protected] [[email][email protected]]
Sent: 9/26/2023, 9:34 PM
***********************************************
Another non-answer. Didn't notice this. It went to spam. I didn't know I had a password. It's a Captcha.

Federal Aviation
Administration
FAADroneZone

Your password has been successfully changed.

If your password was changed without your notice, please contact the UAS Support Center.
For general inquiries or to request support with your account, please contact the UAS Support Center.

This is an automated email. Please do not respond directly.

************************************************

ECHO24

I've asked 4 questions. The last one was my second question reworded so a bot or whoever would not pounce on 'postponement". And again unanswered. So that's one out of four, finances. If you're broke and can't afford a module you're a naughty boy.

If I ever get a "Dear Mr. xxxxx ...." letter I'll ask that person to come here and share with us publically how the FAA can bring an enforcement action against someone based on a secret recipe known only to them.

ECHO24

While waiting for our FAA overlords to chime in, let's run it by ChatGPT and see what our robot overlords think about it.


Hi ChatGPT. What follows is from the Rules of Statutory Construction and Interpretation from the Supreme Court of the United States, and then an argument. Please use these rules to evaluate the argument..

ChatGPT
I'm happy to help you evaluate an argument in light of the Rules of Statutory Construction and Interpretation from the Supreme Court of the United States. Please provide the argument and any specific rules or principles you would like me to apply to it, and I will do my best to assist you in analyzing it.

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)]

ChatGPT
Thank you for providing the excerpt from the Supreme Court's Rules of Statutory Construction and Interpretation. Now, let's evaluate an argument in light of these principles.

Here is the argument:

"FAADroneZone put out this statement: "The Remote Identification requirement for drones has been extended to March 16, 2024". I had a Remote ID module ordered and after seeing that notice I cancelled the order not wanting to have a module sitting around for 6 months. Only later did I see that the FAA saying that the extension only applies to some people. What do I do now?

Background discussion: The "unable to comply" portion of the notice is void for vagueness. It's a requirement that a rule must be clear and unambiguous to a person of ordinary intelligence. The FAA can't simply point someone to the Federal Register or add qualifications outside of a rule that can be changed, altered, added to or taken from. Similarly, the FAA can not arbitrarily bring an action after considering "all factors" without clearly stating what those factors are.

Further, FAA's position is directly contradicted by the notice referenced above from the FAADroneZone.

And finally, when an agency says they are "expecting" a particular outcome, that is an interpretation not a legal requirement.

ChatGPT
Let's evaluate the argument presented in light of the Rules of Statutory Construction and Interpretation, particularly the principles of void for vagueness and the need for clear and unambiguous rules.

Argument Evaluation:

1. Void for Vagueness:
   • The argument contends that the "unable to comply" portion of the notice is void for vagueness because it lacks clarity and unambiguity. This assertion aligns with the basic principle of due process, as outlined in the Supreme Court's Rules of Statutory Construction and Interpretation, which states that laws must give a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited.
   • The argument is correct in emphasizing that a rule or requirement must be clear and unambiguous. Vague rules can create confusion and hinder compliance, potentially leading to situations where individuals inadvertently violate the law due to a lack of understanding.
2. FAA's Position vs. FAADroneZone's Statement:
   • The argument asserts that the FAA's position contradicts the notice from FAADroneZone, which stated that the Remote Identification requirement had been extended to a specific date. This raises a valid concern if the FAA's official position differs from the information provided by a trusted source, as it can create confusion and uncertainty among affected individuals.
   • In cases where there is ambiguity or conflicting information, individuals may reasonably rely on official statements or interpretations from the relevant authority, such as the FAA. If the FAA later clarifies its position, individuals might find themselves in a difficult situation due to the initial contradictory information.
3. Expectation vs. Legal Requirement:
   • The argument distinguishes between an agency's expectation and a legal requirement, highlighting that an agency's "expectation" should not be treated as a binding legal obligation. This is consistent with the principles of statutory interpretation, as expectations or interpretations by agencies may not have the same legal weight as formal regulations or rules.

In summary, the argument appears to raise valid concerns regarding the clarity and consistency of the FAA's communication and the potential implications for individuals who acted based on the information provided. It emphasizes the importance of clear and unambiguous rules, as well as the distinction between agency expectations and legally binding requirements. If the FAA's position differs from what was communicated by FAADroneZone, individuals may have legitimate reasons to seek clarification and address any issues arising from conflicting information.

Thank you ChatGPT, for standing up for the little guy and confirming what I thought about those tricksters at the FAA.

ECHO24

I sent that to FAA UAS Support Center. I think they'll get a kick out of it. I left out the first and last sentences. I can always add them later.


I had tacked on the last sentence and went back just now, logged back in and ran it by ChatGPT. (ChatGPT remembered our chat)

"Thank you ChatGPT, for standing up for the little guy and confirming what I thought about those tricksters at the FAA

ChatGPT
You're welcome! It's important to critically evaluate and question the actions of organizations like the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) to ensure transparency and accountability. If you have any specific concerns or questions about the FAA or any other topic, feel free to ask, and I'll do my best to provide you with accurate and unbiased information.

ECHO24

Who needs AMA when you've got a friend like ChatGPT? ChatGPT Model Aeronautics Association. CMAA.

ECHO24

Via email:

To: Steve Farrow / SAIC
FAA Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration
UAS Support and Outreach Team


From: xxxxx
Email: xxxxx

Re: My support tickets

Hi Steve. Hope You and staff got a chuckle out of the ChatGPT legal opinion. The "background discussion" is a public discussion on RCUniverse, the smaller of the two radio control forums (vs. RCGroups).

RID Postponement: FAA's Unenforceable Threat


If I were a Part 107 operator I would get with RID ASAP regardless. But you are speaking to a much larger audience of RC hobbyists that also includes teenagers. And it's not just the confusing message. This is one more example of our government and non-government entities' involvement in our lives by edict, to me anyway .

The FAA had three choices; a straight extension, a statement of just deferred enforcement, but the FAA set a date.

And now you're left with not being able to answer a simple question and stuck with a two-paragraph boilerplate response that repeats twice the not-so-enforceable statement that the FAA expects people to comply.

My password changed (password for what I do not know) is a bit fishy. Not saying it is but that's a tactic police use to get to someone off the record. I follow the link: "Let me look into that. Is there a good number we can reach you at?" I take the call-back: "Nice pilot certificate you have there, be a shame if something happened to it".

I looked again to see if I was being logged in automatically on the support site. It's just a Captcha. But I had been using Google autfill and noticed it was entering my wife's phone number. Woe be unto thee whoever makes that call!

Cheers

I'll post this and that's it on my end.

ECHO24

The End

franklin_m

I'm not aware of any tactical jet that has an ELT for the aircraft. I know for certain that A6, EA6B, F14, F18 (series) didn't have an ELT for the aircraft.

Some of the big planes might ... don't recall if P3 had one. I've only got a couple flights in that type though.

Ejection seats typically have an ELT in them, for Navy jets it's in the seat pan that stays with the pilot. But it's not uncommon for the pilot to come down miles from where the jet impacts as it appears was the case here. And we typically disconnect them in combat. If you're dead, it doesn't matter that much. If you're alive, you definitely don't want to broadcast your position.

ECHO24

Franklin, I though you'd be posting a review of yesterday's Remote ID webinar. Nothing to report?

franklin_m

Had to miss it, on a plane headed to a different client site for meeting this morning.

ECHO24

I lasted about 7 or 8 minutes. About as interesting as scaping paint. No way would I sit through an hour of the invited speaker's monotone voice and flat delivery, especially when the punchline, the Remote ID extension, he said needed to wait until the 3rd chapter. That should tell you something. It shouldn't take more than 3 minutes to explain.

He also didn't mention the first extension when he went over the timeline. Anyone else watch it?

ECHO24

I guess I was the only victim. Franklin Launched a thread about it, went off on people who didn't rave about it, then didn't bother to watch it himself.

ElectriMan

Missed it, Didn't miss it.
So it wasn't relevant to model aviation then?

ECHO24

They published the outline. Nothing for anyone already in RC.
1. What is Remote ID?
2. Am I already Remote ID compliant?
3. How do I become compliant?

I was just there for the (convoluted) Remote ID extension explanation. That was put off until toward the end (for a reason). A better speaker it may have been worth the slog. It wasn't.

franklin_m

That's a cheap shot ... the "bother" part. I told you why, which was because I was on a plane short notice for work. Do you really expect me to blow off my employer to attend something on toy planes?

ECHO24

Why not just admit it. You knew it was going to be a bore-a-thon.