RID Postponement: FAA's Unenforceable Threat
09-20-2023, 11:52 AM
#1
RID Postponement: FAA's Unenforceable Threat
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.
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; 09-20-2023 at 12:07 PM.
09-20-2023, 01:52 PM
#3
This as far as it's going to go unless someone challenges it, and that can't happen until someone is a subject of an action, which isn't going to happen. Nothing can happen in the short time frame. That's the same trick the governor of New Mexico tried by making her blatantly unconstitutional gun ban for 30 days.
09-20-2023, 02:36 PM
#4
"void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined."
I order a module (it's the only one that fits my application). It now won't be here until the first week of March 2024. Am I in compliance?
I order a module (it's the only one that fits my application). It now won't be here until the first week of March 2024. Am I in compliance?
09-20-2023, 03:07 PM
#5
Or last week of December, or Mid-November, or tomorrow. Can't be sure because it's "not clearly defined."
Anyone still buffalo'd by the FAA after reading that section of Rules of Statutory Construction and Interpretation (from the US Supreme Court no less) - Well, uh, I just don't know ...Here's Trump's line, "Go home to mommy". Ground yourself.
Anyone still buffalo'd by the FAA after reading that section of Rules of Statutory Construction and Interpretation (from the US Supreme Court no less) - Well, uh, I just don't know ...Here's Trump's line, "Go home to mommy". Ground yourself.
09-20-2023, 05:27 PM
#6
@BarracudaHockey, Pass it along to the executives at the AMA. Let us hear what they have to say about the FAA's notice and the Rules of Statutory Construction and Interpretation. I haven't yet checked on FAA's bore-inar on the 28th but that would make for a far more interesting discussion.
09-20-2023, 06:31 PM
#7
Everyone here I think knows how RID works. The public is responsible for detecting drones (or not) through a phone app, who then report it to local police, who then forward it to the FAA.
The subject in virtually every case will be long gone before the FAA or anyone else is involved. So read this from the postponement announcement and tell me whoever wrote this knows how RID works.
"Remote ID acts like a digital license plate and will help the FAA, law enforcement, and other federal agencies find the control station when a drone appears to be flying in an unsafe manner or where it is not allowed to fly."
Whoever wrote that thought it was in real-time, not hours or days later, and is probably clueless that it stars with a citizen's report. This whole thing is a farce.
The subject in virtually every case will be long gone before the FAA or anyone else is involved. So read this from the postponement announcement and tell me whoever wrote this knows how RID works.
"Remote ID acts like a digital license plate and will help the FAA, law enforcement, and other federal agencies find the control station when a drone appears to be flying in an unsafe manner or where it is not allowed to fly."
Whoever wrote that thought it was in real-time, not hours or days later, and is probably clueless that it stars with a citizen's report. This whole thing is a farce.
Last edited by ECHO24; 09-20-2023 at 07:12 PM.
09-21-2023, 04:48 PM
#14
Everyone here I think knows how RID works. The public is responsible for detecting drones (or not) through a phone app, who then report it to local police, who then forward it to the FAA.
The subject in virtually every case will be long gone before the FAA or anyone else is involved. So read this from the postponement announcement and tell me whoever wrote this knows how RID works.
"Remote ID acts like a digital license plate and will help the FAA, law enforcement, and other federal agencies find the control station when a drone appears to be flying in an unsafe manner or where it is not allowed to fly."
Whoever wrote that thought it was in real-time, not hours or days later, and is probably clueless that it stars with a citizen's report. This whole thing is a farce.
The subject in virtually every case will be long gone before the FAA or anyone else is involved. So read this from the postponement announcement and tell me whoever wrote this knows how RID works.
"Remote ID acts like a digital license plate and will help the FAA, law enforcement, and other federal agencies find the control station when a drone appears to be flying in an unsafe manner or where it is not allowed to fly."
Whoever wrote that thought it was in real-time, not hours or days later, and is probably clueless that it stars with a citizen's report. This whole thing is a farce.
Astro
09-21-2023, 09:05 PM
#15
Even funnier. Lots of memes. Also good find on the Trent Palmer video. Very good insight into the administrative law world of the FAA. Ipse Dixit, the FAA said it so it's so.
I once sat through an entire FAA enforcement hearing as a witness for the FAA. They had the guy dead to rights, aerobatics directly over an airport. He was the son of an
airline pilot, entitled, they dressed him in a cardigan sweater like the Menendez brothers. He got off Scott Free. You'd be surprised how (with good lawyers) an eye witness
can be discredited. The judge and respondent's lawyers probably had dinner together before and lunch afterwards. I dunno maybe that had something to do with it.
That said, I would be more than happy to appear before an administrative judge over an RID violation with just the FAA RID postponement in hand, just because (self-abuse maybe).
I once sat through an entire FAA enforcement hearing as a witness for the FAA. They had the guy dead to rights, aerobatics directly over an airport. He was the son of an
airline pilot, entitled, they dressed him in a cardigan sweater like the Menendez brothers. He got off Scott Free. You'd be surprised how (with good lawyers) an eye witness
can be discredited. The judge and respondent's lawyers probably had dinner together before and lunch afterwards. I dunno maybe that had something to do with it.
That said, I would be more than happy to appear before an administrative judge over an RID violation with just the FAA RID postponement in hand, just because (self-abuse maybe).
09-22-2023, 06:48 AM
#17
The flip side to ElectriMan's point is it's estimated only 5% of craft currently have Remote ID, and there are any number of reasons why a signal would not be detected even if. That's not a call cops are going to show up for, ever, for just that.
The Frontier Airlines/drone close call they had the guy, police and FAA interviewed him at his home. He said it was a friend flying the drone. Didn't give a last name. Case closed.
The Frontier Airlines/drone close call they had the guy, police and FAA interviewed him at his home. He said it was a friend flying the drone. Didn't give a last name. Case closed.
09-24-2023, 07:12 AM
#18
Comedy gold. 911 call from the house where the F-35 pilot came down after ejecting: "How far did [the patient] fall?" ... "2,000 feet."
https://rumble.com/v3k4kgu-heres-the...o-ejected.html
https://rumble.com/v3k4kgu-heres-the...o-ejected.html
