I have been reading a lot about model rocketry lately because of what I'm doing with my granddaughter.

I read that the high power guys who have to get level certification had issues with the Feds, this time it was ATF.  ATF made law changes on how and what the rocketeers could possess, how and what they could store, etc.  The model rocket community sued the ATF and won in court.  This happened back in 2009.  So, this lawsuit against the FAA if crafted correctly there is a good chance we could prevail.

Hopefully the FAA reverses their course on the remote ID and no court action is needed....fingers crossed, but if we have to go to court it may not be futile.

My dad used to launch them in the desert and my sister and I were pretty "into it" in the 70's. I started introducing my kids to the when they were young. We had a lot of fun launching them and we had a family NAR membership when that all happened. It is possible to win, though it was a bit of a different circumstance. The BATFE went after the propulsion fuels and not the rockets themselves. It wasn't a fight for airspace, but a means to powering our models.

Still, it was a win and the defendant was one of the most powerful government agencies next to the IRS. If we do not fight, we will most certainly lose!

It seems that Covid-19 has brought drone deliveries back into focus.

Alphabet's delivery by drone surge to stay-at-home customers

Just a question, does remote ID apply to private property flying?

(09-Apr-2020, 11:28 AM)Smoses221 Wrote: Just a question, does remote ID apply to private property flying?

Yes, it will apply to ALL air space. If it gets implemented.

(13-Mar-2020, 02:53 PM)Krohsis Wrote: The trouble with drone delivery is it's a pipe dream at best.  The system will be ripe for civil liability.  We are having fatalities with self driving cars, and now they want to go 3 dimensional?  They don't think they will have property loss, injuries and death?  These will have to be very large powerful drones capable of causing big problems when things go wrong.  The tech really isn't there to make it happen.  Plus if one drone delivers one package the airspace would be so heavily congested, even if some of the airspace is for drone delivery alone, the sky would look like bats leaving the cave.

Some peeps have shared how the drone delivery system is doomed to failure.  Xjet is one to share this belief.

So the laws will be chaged for a system that won't ever come to be.  And when the pipe dream dies, we would have to fight again to get the laws repealed or modified.  

I agree that a case argument based on the constitutionality of the law is likely a loser.   I don't know if fair access would be a better argument, I'm not a tort attorney.  Hopefully they get a lawfirm who has experience with suing the feds.

Check this out:  https://finance.yahoo.com/news/alphabet-...09872.html

From the above link: "Mockingbird Cafe sold 50% more pastries through Wing’s drones in its first weekend with the company than it typically sold in its store prior to the virus-related business disruptions."

Drone delivery may very well be a pipe dream...or maybe not. The coronavirus may have accelerated the drone delivery movement. With the social distancing thing, methods that deliver products with less human proximity are becoming more popular. Drones can even deliver to "hard to reach" places. Maybe drone deliveries are closer than we think. 

Sadly, it may also accelerate the Remote ID issue. Some might want to "fast track" it.

Just a thought: What if Elon Musk decided to get into a drone delivery project...well...???

I have already been thinking about a package "drop" retrieval system that could be retrofitted to a house that would automatically "bring" the package to a secure "bin" inside the house. The drone "sets" the package on the pad and sends delivered "code" to the system, an automatic elevator system lowers (assuming roof mount) the package into the house, and the package is pushed into a bin or area, then the platform rises back into place at the top...waiting for another delivery. Think about the business opportunities here. And, this is just one possible concept. 

I know it sounds crazy, but so did Dick Tracey's "wrist radio" or Maxwell Smart's "shoe phone".

(12-Apr-2020, 12:11 AM)iFly4rotors Wrote: I have already been thinking about a package "drop" retrieval system that could be retrofitted to a house that would automatically "bring" the package to a secure "bin" inside the house. The drone "sets" the package on the pad and sends delivered "code" to the system, an automatic elevator system lowers (assuming roof mount) the package into the house, and the package is pushed into a bin or area, then the platform rises back into place at the top...waiting for another delivery. Think about the business opportunities here. And, this is just one possible concept. 

Let me know if you need a finance guy lol.

That's why I like buying from RDQ. It's supporting American suppliers and keeping our rights to fly. Love them for stepping up. However, I'm not sure about whether it will be an easy fight or not.

Personally, I hope that RDQ wins this lawsuit. Or at least, that the "Remote ID" thing gets modified into something reasonable. It is possible to reach a median point that is workable for everyone. All they really need is the Vtx signal include a registration number (the next rev of Betaflight could probably handle that).

the.ronin,  Thanks man.   
I really think drone delivery will have opportunities besides just the drone. 

In my experience, the most lucrative business models tend to be those that address a degree or two down the value chain. For instance, nevermind the teleportation device invention, come up with the suit that facilitates teleportation. It's never as sexy and you don't ever get the cover of Forbes ... but you can be envious as you sip martinis on your yacht anchored off Belize lol.

You should get something prototyped.

So it looks like Tyler Brennan of RaceDayQuads is going ahead with his original plan to sue the FAA over the Remote ID proposal. The latest details are in the video below...

I'm a little late to this discussion, but I have a couple of questions.

In the video above I thought I heard mention of not being able to build our own drones, I didn't see this in the proposed rule https://www.faa.gov/uas/research_development/remote_id/

Is this is a combination of rulemaking for revenue generation, possibly to bolster earlier BVLOS operation restrictions, they can't charge you if they don't know who you are, this addresses that.

It really has no significance for safety, already the FAA controls everything >500' above your private property, and the general aviation aircraft that legally fly at those altitudes aren't going to install equipment to actually receive these transmissions, and won't know what direction and altitude the threat is coming from.

It might help facilitate the massive remote delivery system proposed by the retail industry as they state, but controlling ANYTHING < 500' is over reach.

It puzzles me that they are freaking out about anything over .25kg when anyone can build anything that will fly below 254# (part 107 ultralight vehicle) and you don't have any certification of any kind, no remote id, no N number... and can fly over anything anywhere (accept class A or B airspace, without notice) without even basic communication.

The Remote ID NPRM doesn't go into the fine details, but the whole point of Remote ID is that an approved device would be incorporated into all drones that is effectively tamperproof. If the FAA allowed people to continue building their own drones with their own parts and opensource software then that would make a mockery of the whole proposal because people could then just not fit a Remote ID device at all, or they could bypass it in software with some custom code changes. So not only would the proposal prohibit building and flying your own creations, it would also only allow the use of closed source (controlled) flight control firmware. This means you would then only be able to buy commercially manufactured drones off-the-shelf that had been certified and approved with a Remote ID device already incorporated into them. This would only apply to anything over 249 grams, but there is nothing to say that in future the rules wouldn't change to also include the sub 250g category as well.

Everyone knows this is nothing to do with safety and everything to do with trying and kill the hobby so that the 0-400ft airspace is cleared of recreational flyers in order for it to be used for revenue making schemes such as drone delivery.

And yes, the fact that you can just go fly something like a paramotor without any kind of training or license makes a complete farce out of the whole ruling.

@snow,

Good points. not sure they will ever be able to control the fixed 500' over ones property, especially having commercial drones hauling a$$ in that space.

(19-Nov-2020, 09:38 PM)livefpv Wrote: @snow,

Good points. not sure they will ever be able to control the fixed 500' over ones property, especially having commercial drones hauling a$$ in that space.

If you are under the belief that 500 feet over your property is under your control, you are misinformed.