FAA Sued

dronesky · Mar 18, 2021

Information from private meetings to surveillance

FAA Legal Battle - Challenging Remote ID

RaceDayQuads is preparing to challenge the NPRM in court, as the NPRM (which the FAA plans to make official in December 2020) could have widespread and devastating effects on our hobby and on all of RC flight. Donate: Donations are being collected to assist in the fight. These are hugely...

www.racedayquads.com

Total Guide to Part 89 Remote ID (Requirements, Waivers, Lists of Modules & Drones). – Drone Law and Drone Attorney Assistance

IT Service WordPress Theme

jrupprechtlaw.com

RaceDayQuads LLC v. FAA (Lawsuit Challenging Drone Remote Identification Regulations) – Drone Law and Drone Attorney Assistance

IT Service WordPress Theme

jrupprechtlaw.com

Capt KO · Mar 18, 2021

Quick scan but seems FAA screwed up. Someone forgot to read the rules. Endgame? Will see

Dave Pitman · Mar 18, 2021

Capt KO said:
Quick scan but seems FAA screwed up. Someone forgot to read the rules. Endgame? Will see

Those pesky regs. And no surprise the likes of AirMap are right in the middle of it.

Starz · Mar 19, 2021

Anyone have information on why someone SHOULDN’T contribute to RDQ’s expensive effort? If there’s information on that(the shouldn’t part), please share.

Adamborz · Mar 19, 2021

The FAA holding secret meetings hidden from the public? Shocking. My P4P already broadcasts its identity. Why isn’t that enough?

hmobley · Mar 20, 2021

check out Alien Drones on you tube, he always talks directly to the FAA and gets the real scoop!

jlummel · Mar 21, 2021

This seems more like a publicity stunt than anything, the 'lawsuit' is simply asking a court to review the final rule and asks for nothing else and only provides a copy of the rule itself. As they have yet to show damage, the issue of standing will be an interesting point to watch.

Secondly, and more importantly, their analysis on their 'FAA Legal Battle' webpage, in the FAQ section, is fundamentally flawed in parts that talk about FPV and visual observers, both for recreational and 107 flying.

As I'm NOT a lawyer, it is possible this is a prelude real legal action, so I will look on with interest to see what happens. But based on the information I have available at this point in time, this seems either a stunt or amateurish (particularly the analysis in the FAQ section, though, despite the flaws they do raise some interesting points). But being NOT a lawyer, I could get their case thrown out of court with what little I know if they try to defend it with the analysis in the FAQ section! Imagine what a real FAA lawyer could do...

If they ARE serious, they need to up their game!

UPDATE, a day later - they did an interview last night that explained the process better and confirmed that this filing is the prelude to a bigger action and is the first step. However there is still the issue of standing, which as NOT a lawyer I believe will be at issue as they are simply making hay about how the sausage is made and about provisions that were dropped from the final rule so are moot. And it doesn't change that their analysis is fundamentally flawed, particularly on FPV and the use of visual observers. And I'm still of the opinion, as NOT a lawyer, that this is publicity stunt, nothing that was said changed my view there...