Beyond The Fringe | Conspiracy, News, Politics, and Fun Forum!

Full Version: Court upholds FAAs requirement for remote ID on quads (drones)
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
(08-02-2022, 10:10 AM)counterintelligence Wrote: [ -> ]Tell us everything you have was (as in what do you have so we can take it away) the voice of the government.  Kind of hard to tell that in posts.

Should Have Picked That up from the Cash Transactions Comment .


This guy calls remote ID and the reasons for it BS.
Seems like the route they are going here is supportive of a police state.  Which they are already trying to implement everywhere else in society.

So we have our rogue quad flyer running around with no regard for rules.  So we're going to implement this by remote ID.  So now anyone with a mobile device, but no idea of any of the rules or regulations anymore than the possible person of interest, are going to visit them with bon fires and pitchforks.
Is it just me or does this feel like anything goes?  Some of them do that now without the remote ID and they have an attitude (almost similar to wear your mask or get your vaccine). Imagine what would happen if somebody decided to become a vigilante quad hunter?

This seems like the FAA has just totally backed out of their duties, except to lay and levy fines.  In fact if it is a required registration, they can give an absurd fine just for not registering.  And registration is tied in with the remote ID.  Registration was also heavily protested until Congress reaffirmed the authority of the FAA to do that.
(08-04-2022, 06:56 AM)SkyCat Wrote: [ -> ]
The RC modeler guys hate it even more than the quad guys, but the AMA told them not to worry.  And just why did the modelers now be added to the quad umbrella? There were debates about whether the FAA even read any of the comments to the NPRM.  And then the lawsuit that was just ruled on, the plaintiff stated that the final ruling reads completely different than the NPRM.  They are going to push the dates back, since they have nothing to go by as of yet.  If they don't change the dates then they are just trying to deliberately ground everybody on purpose.

Maybe there is a paper trail of money behind who is funding this campaign.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25