I believe it was already challenged some time ago in court but it failed, I'm not sure there is much in the way of legal recourse that hasn't already been done
@@Razor-gx2dq That is why sometimes people have to use non-compliance as the only *effective* method of forcing change. Look at prohibition in the 1920s and cannabis reform in recent years. The law said "no" but the people, through their non-compliance, said "yes" and eventually the law was changed. So long as you are not hurting or endangering anyone else then non-compliance is a very valid force for change when laws and regulations are unreasonable. MLK Jr had plenty to say about that.
Xjet: You have an odd approach to life, I must say. The FAA's sole job in life is promoting aviation safety to a broad range of people: Pilots, passengers, hobbyists and innocent citizens on the ground. They do this by writing regulations (that have a full and public comment period . . . remote ID generated over 53,000 comments) that are assumed to be followed by compliant users. Yet your approach is to . . . not follow these regs. If it makes you feel any better/think clearly, instead of regulations call them safety guidelines. Which at the end of the day they are. Now to be honest, at the end of the day, the FAA really does not have the time or bandwidth to worry about recreational RC pilots flying without a remote ID module. As long as they have sense enough to stay off social media. The FAA has much bigger fish to fry. Don't confuse obstructing common-sense aviation safety rules with trying to overthrow the Chinese Communist Party or seeking civil rights laws. Two completely different conversations. Tim
It’s good to come up with and share ideas so welcome this. Unfortunately, I don’t think this one is well reasoned. The cost associated with setting up an AMA club (and the ongoing annual subscription costs) will far outweigh the cost of fitting remote ID. Clubs only really benefit from FRIAS when membership is high and many many remote ID modules have not been purchased. But keep the ideas coming - appreciate the content you put out Tim. Thanks!
AMA membership is $85 per year for a single member. Not sure what annual club fees are. Then you’ll have FAA fees (which you will have to pay anyway). You’ll be able to get a remote ID module for the cost of a single membership to the AMA.
Sounds like a monopoly using the government to secure its monopoly. I only want to fly. That’s all. Organizations are great but I should not have to belong to one to do things I want.
The problem I have with local AMA is a negative attitude to quad copters/freestyle quads. Probably just a generational thing. Very much feels like a little feifdom. I try to keep my interactions with them down.
Pursuant to the 9th and 10th Amendments, US Constitution, the federal government cannot assume powers not specifically granted to it by the Constitution. There has never been a constitutional amendment establishing the FAA in the US, until that happens, the FAA has no constitutional authority over the actions of any private citizen. Congress cannot grant the FAA power, that Congress itself does not have under the US Constitution. Assuming that the FAA is constitutional, it does not have the authority regulate the privately owned air space that reaches the enveloping atmosphere of a persons real property, anymore than having the authority to regulate the airspace within ones home. The US Supreme Court has ruled, a landowner owns as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land. Flying a quadcopter around and above privately own trees, buildings, animals, or any other object owned, controlled, and connected to the property, is clearly an activity that is done in direct connection with the use of the land. Privately owned airspace is as much a property right as anything else attached to the property. The government cannot take possession of privately owned airspace and tell a landowner how privately owned airspace can, or cannot be used, without due process of law. The United States Supreme Court ruled, “We have said that the airspace is a public highway. Yet it is obvious that, if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. . . . . The landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as they can occupy or use in connection with the land.” States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946) Example: A private model aviation club, on private land, has a constitutionally protected right to use the private airspace on that land as it deems fit. This applies to human personal space as well. That space that surrounds each person occupying a public space. Those persons have a right to use as much of the space above the ground as they can occupy or use in connection with that public space, as long as it can be done without violating another person’s life, liberty, or property.
@@Razor-gx2dq I suspect you are referring to the RDQ case. RDQ didn't lose, read the case! On appeal, the RDQ case was denied because their argument was premature, as RDQ cannot, at this time, prove that the rule has caused them any damage. The enforcement of RID is on hold. Until the FAA attempts to enforce the RID rule, nobody has suffered a damaged, including myself. Without a damage, there is no issue in controversy, without an issue in controversy, there is no cause of action. On July 29, 2022, the RaceDayQuads appeal was denied by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Judge Cornelia Pillard ruled that the constitutional arguments made against remote ID's implementation were frivolous and/or “dependent on applications of the rule and not the rule itself”. RDQ's case proves nothing. The constitutionality of RID has not been lawfully addressed yet. Things will get interesting once a citizen is damaged by the rule, when that happens, constitutionally, it’s game on!
@@TimMcKay56 Those who already walk submissively, will always say there is no cause for alarm! How does it feel, to be a bird in an FAA electronic cage? Land of the FAA fee, home of the FAA SLAVE!
If you could explain why Experimental aircraft and Paraglider aircraft don't require remote ID then I will fallow FAA rules. Until then, noncompliance is the only way. Stop being a part of the problem!
@TimMcKay56 then why do they have more deaths per year than UAS? This is a non safety regulation dressed as compliance. If you don't comply, it makes it really hard for the FAA to find you.
Somehow Tim, I don't think your idea willy fly. The FAA has already stated the number of FRIAs it expects to grant and it's already a very small number compared to the number of existing clubs and educational institutions. Attempts to increase this number by creating a large number of 5-member clubs will be unlikey to succeed. We've already seen a number of AMA clubs denied FRIA status -- perhaps, at least in part, because the FAA is seeking to keep the total number to a bare minimum in accordance with their previously stated figures.
My club (primarily a glider club) has been flying from a couple sod farms in the country side. We have permission from the owners and have been trying to get FRIA status but have been having trouble due to public roads dividing the sod fields. I'm building a nice collection of below 250gm park fliers in case things don't work out.
You know Tim,I recently visited my local club in Piedmont S.C.And they told me that aircraft registration as well as AMA and club membership is required to fly there,even my small 35 in wingspen electric sport/ pattern planes and they appear to talk very strongly about having an ID module in your model.All those requirements can add up to a lot of money just to fly a toy model plane.
Steven: Aircraft registration is required by the FAA; $5 for three years, one number for all aircraft recreationally. AMA and club membership tracks. The club should have FRIA status, so if that is the case, no remote ID needed for flights in the FRIA. Tim
This is ridiculous.... there has been a substantial increase in small aircraft fatalities. But the FAA is going to focus on remote ID for toy airplanes.. Government inefficiency at its best.
Remote ID has been worked since 2018 (2018 FAA Authorization Bill). As unmanned aircraft will be a $24 billion industry in 2025, RID is a foundational step towards integration into the National Airspace System. Tim
Where can I find a list of reasons why they would deny FRIA status? Our club was denied twice. I believe the area I'd love to make a FRIA is too close to homes and walking trails.
MM: I am not sure. The offices at the AMA likely have the best source of information on denials, as they deal with the vast majority of cases. Perhaps you can reach out to them with specific questions via email. Tim
Easy enough to just fly, out in the middle of nowhere!! Nobody is going around checking for remote id...and with its extremely limited range, if you have enough land, no way anybody is going to know!! On a different note... if ya do end up getting a module, turn it on about a mile from where you plan to launch. When it achieves gps, that becomes the "homepoint". Great way to obscure pilot location!
It all comes down to money ,were all not all that well off. Paying some club out outrageous prices plus AMA there out rageous price as well. And I do no what they offer. And its ridiculous, thats only my opinion of course just me. I have been a Rc enthusiast and flyer for 60 some years on and off and watched the prices go up and down on clubs, an AMA just keep raising prices. You would think if they had that meany members they would give the ones that are not well off but would love to get in the hobby of RC flying. But now the government wants to get on the band wagon. Just comes down to money, every one wants to line there pockets. This is only my opinion , All of you who belong to clubs and the AMA I have no ill will tord nobody. I was once also AMA member. Thank you Tim I do enjoy your Commentary.
Doug: You are over reacting a bit. This is 2023 and the world of aviation is changing. We can no longer exist just on our own. Land and airspace are both crowded, it is in our direct interest to be orgainized and have representation in Washington. Tim
Guess I’m just incredibly lucky, because my entire recreational drone fleet just self-declared everywhere they fly to be a FRIA. So no RID modules needed! 😎
Cute dog. Look like ours. You have an interesting "angle" on trying to get a FRIA. If someone actually tries this, it would be nice if they keep you in the loop so that we can see how or rather "IF" this works out.
Mr. McKay, Would you state the name of the previous FAA NPRM that indicated RC Pilots must receive authorization before flight; the version that preceded creation of FRIAs? I wish to do some light reading. 😅
DM: I am not sure the document exists. But it may depending on how your Google search goes. When the FAA put pen to paper and wrote the first draft of the Remote ID regulation, it was released as a NPRM (or Notice of Proposed Rule Making) that was a draft of the remote ID rule, and out for comments. I think there was a 60 day comment period. The FAA received over 53,000 comments before publishing the Final Remote ID Rule (which is easy to find, 470 pages long). The final rule goes over all the comments and what the FAA decided to do. The NPRM did have a section where modelers would have to log in to some national database system before a flight. This caused a complete uproar (remote areas do not have cellular service, etc.) and the need to log in was completely removed from the final rule, just a RID broadcast system now. Maybe this is where you heard of an authorization before flight. Tim
