Not sure if this has been shared already but it's the latest briefing filed by RDQ on the lawsuit against RemoteID.  If you haven't already, I would encourage EVERYONE to send a few bucks towards RDQ in support of the lawsuit.  Even $5 helps, and I doubt any of us would hesitate to spend $5 on something FPV related, so help everyone by contributing to the cause!

19 Brennan and RDQ Opening Brief.pdf (dropbox.com)

I just got an email from them and followed the Donate link and sent some money.

Fight the good fight Tyler !! and thanks


Scott

I posted this just over 2 hours ago. I spend those 2 hours reading the entire argument front to back. Granted I am biased, but I came away really impressed with their arguments. At a minimum I am hoping the FAA is forced to re-open things for further comment AND is required to form a proper "group" of ALL stakeholders to address comments, issues, concerns, etc. Maybe, finally the recreational users will have a real voice. IMO, the original final ruling was just as the lawsuit contends...a sham. It's pretty obvious the Cohort of business want RemoteID so that they can fly delivery drones through neighborhoods without invading on peoples privacy, and safer for THEM to fly knowing where all of US are flying.

Anyway, here's hoping RDQ's keeps up the good fight for us. Personally I always order from them first. If they are out of product or don't have what I need, I'll go elsewhere. But when they have what I need, their prices are always as good (or better) than others and their customer service for me has been excellent. Yeah I guess that makes me a fanboy but this lawsuit ain't going to be cheap, so I'll give them all the help I personally can.

The FAA have responded to RaceDayQuads lawsuit against RemoteID.

FAA Response Document: https://app.box.com/s/af3u1u4xvnmlpxks7h6fvev0rn3tw4fj

Bruce shares some of his initial thoughts in the video below...



And in case anyone missed it, the video below is an interview that JB did with Tyler Brennan and Jonathan Rupprecht regarding the filed lawsuit...

Forbes have covered the RDQ FAA lawsuit in an article that they published today...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnzoldi/2...e-industry

Great article thanks for the link Snow.

And thank you Tyler for stepping up ! I think I will buy some stuff from RDQ today


Scott

(05-Aug-2021, 01:29 AM)Scott_M Wrote: I just got an email from them and followed the Donate link and sent some money.

Fight the good fight Tyler !!  and thanks


Scott

I live in the UK, so the FAA do not 'directly' affect me, but I also donated, as I believe that it WILL eventually affect everyone (Worldwide). Not to mention it is affecting or will affect the FPV community in US now. 

I believe Tyler is an air force pilot, so just shows that the airspace can be shared.

I don't know I've been expecting things to sort of mellow out globally. If you research airplane history there was many of the same privacy arguements made about them flying over people's property. Obviously there's legal avenues for the use of aircraft for both industry and private use that no one even meantions are invasive today.

I'm in Canada so this doesn't affect me and I don't believe it ever will. We have our rpas laws clearly targeted at industrial use and an exemption under Maac membership (model aeronautical association of canada) that allows a complete exemption from any liscensing and registration for hobby use. So far we've had zero major issues with this approach and no one even bats an eye at safe drone use anymore.

The move to 250g that most countries have adopted also takes a lot of leverage away from arguing these are dangerous enough to nessesitate further restrictions. I've been quite shocked that on the beginner threads 5" is still the top recommended beginner first drone. If just one kid dies from these and it goes viral across the internet that will be the end of it. We as a community would be doing ourselves a lot of good to all be pushing for the advancement of this catagory and accepting it. At the very least it gives credibility to arguing we have the ability to self regulate if restrictions do come around.

RaceDayQuads will be putting forward their arguments against Remote ID tomorrow morning (15th December 2021 @ 09:30 EST) at The United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. The hearing will be live streamed on YouTube for anyone interested.

Source (Facebook): https://www.facebook.com/groups/RaceDayQ...3526838079

YouTube Live Steam Link: https://youtu.be/pfxJRoHOfsw?t=0

Tyler Brennan Wrote:RemoteID oral arguments take place tomorrow morning at 0930 EST! We aren’t sure exactly when it’ll start as there are three cases tomorrow but some time between 0930 and 1030 is when we expect it. Each side gets 10 minutes and will answer questions from the judges.
 
For those that can’t catch it live (including myself ) the audio is archived and made available later that day or early the next.
This is the last thing before we get a ruling in a month or two!

Unfortunately Bruce from remodelreviews is correct.
When it comes to national security reasons that special needs loophole is going to cause some problems for RDQ attorney.
I hope I’m completely wrong but national security is a whole different game and they always will win.

Does any of the transponder rules apply to LOS flying?

(19-Dec-2021, 05:58 PM)Rob3ddd Wrote: Unfortunately Bruce from remodelreviews is correct.
 When it comes to national security reasons that special needs loophole is going to cause some problems for RDQ attorney.
 I hope I’m completely wrong but national security is a whole different game and they always will win.

You might want to have a listen to the court arguments presented by both RDQ and the FAA at 1:14:37 into the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit hearing (click the link below to go straight to that time section). The discussion around the RDQ lawsuit lasts ~45 minutes. It's quite an interesting listen and seems to have partly turned the tables on the FAA with the presiding judges seemingly siding more with RDQ's arguments than the FAA's arguments. It is therefore going to be very interesting to see what comes out of this because the FAA could potentially be forced to go back to square one and rethink the whole thing and come up with some more appropriate options around the whole Remote ID debacle.

https://youtu.be/pfxJRoHOfsw?t=4477

(19-Dec-2021, 05:58 PM)Rob3ddd Wrote: Does any of the transponder rules apply to LOS flying?

Yes, it applies to ALL unmanned model aircraft.

(19-Dec-2021, 06:29 PM)SnowLeopardFPV Wrote: Yes, it applies to ALL unmanned model aircraft.

How much do those transponders weigh?        JK




   

@ Snow, Thanks for the link to the court arguments. 

I listened to the entire video. It is interesting that the counsel for the FAA seemed to 
be saying that RemoteID information would not be stored. In fact, much of what he
had to say appears to contradict the FAA's intended use of RemoteID. He also clearly
avoided defining navigable airspace even though asked several times. 

It does appear that the judges had a leaning towards the plaintiff (RDQ).

It will be interesting to see how the court rules.

@ Scott, That looks like a sub 250 gram aircraft and would not need RemoteID as
long as you fly it purely for recreational purposes. Yeah, don't post the video from it 
or it might be considered in the furtherance of a business, your business (ha, ha). 

JB and Blunty's video below is worth listening to which summarises and analyses some of the important points of the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit hearing that was on 15th December 2021...

Lawfare - D.C. Circuit May Blow Up the Remote Identification Rule for Drones

https://www.lawfareblog.com/dc-circuit-m...ule-drones