FPV Drone Community Lawsuit Reply Brief Filed, On To Oral Arguments

RaceDayQuads has filed a brief in its case fighting the newest FAA regulations on remote identification.

In 2019, the agency proposed, and weeks later published, a rule requiring future drones and unmanned aerial systems to come equipped with identification broadcasting. Under the new rules, any drone operated without the designated ID reporting would not be airworthy, with the only exception for flights within specially designated airspace, only available for select organizations. Understandably, such a seismic change in the fledgling drone industry brought consternation to operators, given little time or recourse to remain airworthy, drone pilots sought to halt implementation and broker a deal that would allow their equipment to remain airworthy. On behalf of the drone industry, RaceDayQuads filed suit against the FAA to address the shortcomings it sees in the rulemaking process. 

Firstly, they argue that the rule infringes upon a reasonable expectation of privacy, that small drone operators are subjected to a warrantless search of their personal movements and property. The unlimited duration and scope of tracking data, could be construed as a 4th amendment violation in some form, as that information has no guarantees of privacy or stewardship.

They also allege that the final rule was not a logical outgrowth of the notice of proposed rulemaking, appearing that the process was completely detached from the public comments and open stakeholder consult.

In their brief, RaceDayQuads mentions the opacity of the rulemaking process, having to resort to FOIA requests to obtain the developmental paper trail. Meetings between a few select industry representatives and the FAA could be said to point to a secretive, backroom attitude in creating the rule, ultimately birthing a regulation more favorable for those collaborators than the general public. They allege that the “FAA intentionally, arbitrarily, and capriciously concealed relevant and significant information” in its handling, as well as “failed to consider important aspects of the final rule with no support from the record”. If those charges are true, it would be a worrisome case of runaway, unaccountable bureaucracy, a death knell for a young, developing industry. 

Some bystanders have found the debate silly, believing that too much ink and court time has been spent on “remote control toys”. It may not be readily apparent, as it rarely is when the tides of history swell against the shore, but the current drone industry is nearly embryonic when compared to where it will be in as little as a decade. Their use will become instrumental to daily life, assisting in nearly every market and profession, from engineering evaluations to one-day delivery services. What the FAA does now will have lasting repercussions long after everyone involved has ended their career. 

Oral arguments in the case will be scheduled at a later date, but are expected to take place later in 2021, with an ultimate court opinion sometime by spring of 2022. 

FMI: www.jrupprechtlaw.com