Court Upholds Remote ID For Drones - AVweb

News Discussion
21

I think that Judge Pollard missed one key limitation: drones operating in navigable airspace versus simply being airborne.

A hobby drone simply being airborne in a suburban backyard below the tree line is not clearly a hazard to navigation or an issue for the national airspace system. Judge Pollard, writing for the panel, allows the FAA to regulate all drones as if they are in the NAS.

Congress gave the FAA the ability to regulate drones generally and consumer drones specifically in separate legislative enactments. However, the specific language is somewhat vague on what drones to regulate and how to regulate them; Congress only directed the FAA to “develop . . . consensus standards for remotely identifying operators and owners of unmanned aircraft systems” and to “issue regulations or guidance, as appropriate, based on any standards developed.”

The FAA took a blanket approach requiring all drones to participate in their RFID scheme.

Back to the persistant surveillance and Fourth Amend. search argument … if a drone is outside of 49 U.S. Code § 40102 (32) navigable airspace, what exactly is the basis for FAA regulation of the activity? The panel didn’t really shed light on that question. Rather, the court seems to have assumed that merely being in flight means that a drone is in navigable airspace, but, it isn’t clear that simply flying a drone at a low altitude (e.g. below the tree line on your own property) is in navigable airspace.

By staute, Navigable airspace is defined as: ““navigable airspace” means airspace above the minimum altitudes of flight prescribed by regulations under this subpart and subpart III of this part, including airspace needed to ensure safety in the takeoff and landing of aircraft.”

Despite citing the definition of navigable airspace on p. 9 of the opinion, the court never affirmatively applies the definition to the scope of the drone RF ID and tests the margins of the FAA regulation.

Sticking with the imperfect ground vehicle license plate analogy, farm trucks that don’t drive on public roads are typically exempt from state license plate and even safety inspections. The DOT doesn’t require at DOT number for even big rigs operating only on private property for farm purposes so why should the FAA be able to require registration for a drone operating outside if statutory defined navigable airspace over private property?

Brennan and RaceDayQuads raised a real legal question that is not trivial; they lost (for now), but the court really didn’t probe the margins of the FAA’s rule and the heart of the question of how the FAA can regulate all drones at all times at any altitude.

To Paul and the AvWeb team … how about an article by Rick or another aviation lawyer working through some of these interesting regulatory questions.

22

“Sticking with the imperfect ground vehicle license plate analogy, farm trucks that don’t drive on public roads are typically exempt from state license plate and even safety inspections.”

Probably because if such vehicles do drive off the farm, it will rather quickly get noticed by some cop somewhere that it doesn’t have any plates and will get pulled over. Or for the odd farm tractor or construction vehicle driven on the public roads, they generally stick to local roads for short distances, thus limiting their interference with normal road traffic.

But with a drone, anyone can operate any one of them them into “navigable airspace”. Also, helicopters can legally operate almost anywhere, as can drones, so there has to be some way to identify where those drones are. Hence the need for a blanket rule in this case.

23

It’s always been the rule that small low level r/c flying was exempt from transponders and N numbers and inspections and the FAA. The idea that suddenly all of that history and tradition is out-the-window because of a “we say so” attidude is disgusting. God help all those with free flight models.

24

“Navigable airspace” defines jurisdiction.
Well - it USED TO. Not any more.
Consequently, on its face, this ruling covers flight conducted INDOORS at the Mall of America.
Reminds me of “That (otherwise legal) gun COULD be used to kill someone.”
If Congress wants to change the definition of “navigable airspace,” they arguably are free to do so. But remember what happened when the Department of the Interior tried to redefine “navigable waterways,” to include, essentially, puddles.
Danger, Will Robinson.

25

“ But with a drone, anyone can operate any one of them them into “navigable airspace”.

And anyone with a farm truck or a combine can operate any one of them into the “navigable airspace” of the interstate highway system. Better get that John Deere or Farmall transponder equipt. Better yet, make sure that transponder is at least half the cost of the tractor.

26

“ An R/C aircraft generally has to be built.”

Generally? No. Not anymore. Plenty of RTF (ready to fly) R/C aircraft are available off the shelf.

27

“ A drone’s sole barrier to entry is a working credit card. ANYBODY can buy and fly one. There is no training, no club, no mentorship”

An air vehicle’s sole barrier to entry is a working credit card. ANYBODY can buy and fly one. There is no training, no club, no mentorship.

28

That “history and tradition” is out the window because the drone community has consistently shown they are unwilling to follow the history and tradition of the r/c crowd. I don’t ever recall hearing news reports of pilots on final approach having r/c aircraft fly next to them.

29

I already preemptively answered that hypothetical in the paragraph above the one you are replying to…

30

Thought it doesn’t matter if the ruling actually does include indoor flights because the signals are unlikely to get out of the building, so as far as anyone knows, there aren’t any transponderless drones flying indoors.

31

True, but we need a sence of reason and porportion. Personally I think that the “news” does neither.

32

Good decision. I HAVE seen both drones and R/C aircraft in flight. Both times way too close. Drone operators have NO constitutional right to endanger me or my passengers… regardless of whether flying for persoan purposes or for a commercial purpose. KUDOS to the judge.

33

You preempted nothing.

At most, you’ve confused “can” and “allowed”.

Farm vehicles are allowed on some roads. They can drive on any roads.

Hence, farm vehicles need transponders just in case some farmer decides to make a bee-line on the interstate.

Drones are allowed in some airspace. They can fly in any airspace.

Hence, drones need transponders.

34

“ Thought it doesn’t matter if the ruling actually does include indoor flights”

….and suddenly the rules don’t matter….