Recreational "Hand Catch" Violates Federal Law

[sar104]

Federal Aviation Regulations - Part 101, Subpart E, 101.41 (b)
This subpart prescribes rules governing the operation of a model aircraft (or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft) that meets all of the following conditions as set forth in section 336 of Public Law 112-95:

(a) The aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;

(b) The aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;

AMA National Model Aircraft Safety Code Section B, Number 7
"Under no circumstances may a pilot or other person touch an outdoor model aircraft in flight while it is still under power, except to divert it from striking an individual."

If you have a nationwide community-based organization other than the AMA, please post their rules so we will all have a choice.

The logic of your argument is certainly sound and so technically, yes, it would appear that hand catching would go against that guideline. Since there is no other current, credible CBO, it could therefore invalidate any claim to be flying under Part 101, but I still doubt that the FAA would have any interest in making that argument.

Are you posing this as a purely hypothetical issue, or do you see it as a tangible risk to hobbyists?

 

[flockshot]

The logic of your argument is certainly sound and so technically, yes, it would appear that hand catching would go against that guideline. Since there is no other current, credible CBO, it could therefore invalidate any claim to be flying under Part 101, but I still doubt that the FAA would have any interest in making that argument.

Are you posing this as a purely hypothetical issue, or do you see it as a tangible risk to hobbyists?

No greater risk than driving a couple miles per hour over the speed limit in my opinion. I post this to show how unrealistic the laws (FAA) and rules (AMA) for drone drivers really are. Yes, it is controversial, and it should be. I started by stating it is a silly law, and will expand that to be a stupid law for drones, but is shows where we are at right now.
I feel that the drone world will be treated as second class modelers unless we are all aware of the gaps in the rules and work to make changes. We need to know what the laws are now, so we will know what needs changing. That is my reason for making the post.

 

[tcope]

Ok then, a great way to get around FAA part 101, subpart E, 101.41 (b). And I agree about the AMA.

It's not a way to get around it. If you think any CBO can dictate any regulations they want on anyone/everyone (you still are not clear if you think each person needs to obey all CBO rules or if each person needs to pick one CBO) than there are going to a million different rules that we all need to be following. There are many HOAs, townships, counties, cities and states that have their own regulations. Are you following all of these no matter where you are?

 

[sar104]

No greater risk than driving a couple miles per hour over the speed limit in my opinion. I post this to show how unrealistic the laws (FAA) and rules (AMA) for drone drivers really are. Yes, it is controversial, and it should be. I started by stating it is a silly law, and will expand that to be a stupid law for drones, but is shows where we are at right now.
I feel that the drone world will be treated as second class modelers unless we are all aware of the gaps in the rules and work to make changes. We need to know what the laws are now, so we will know what needs changing. That is my reason for making the post.

Fair enough, but I'd characterize it as an oversight in the AMA Handbook, most of which is perfectly sensible, and I don't really agree that it makes Part 101 unrealistic or silly. Part 101 was simply the restatement of Public Law 112-95, Section 336 which, itself, attempted to constrain the definition of model aircraft by including the requirement to follow CBO guidance.

If this represented the biggest problem with Part 101 implementation then I think the hobby community would have little to worry about. More likely, I think, the biggest threat to 101 is the potential revocation of the special rule.

 

[sar104]

It's not a way to get around it. If you think any CBO can dictate any regulations they want on anyone/everyone (you still are not clear if you think each person needs to obey all CBO rules or if each person needs to pick one CBO) than there are going to a million different rules that we all need to be following. There are many HOAs, townships, counties, cities and states that have their own regulations. Are you following all of these no matter where you are?

That's not really the point though. 336, and hence Part 101, requires hobbyists to follow a nationwide CBO guidelines, so it's not the AMA insisting they be followed or dictating anything - it's the Federal Government.

 

[tcope]

That's not really the point though. 336, and hence Part 101, requires hobbyists to follow a nationwide CBO guidelines, so it's not the AMA insisting they be followed or dictating anything - it's the Federal Government.

I'm not saying anything to that effect... however, the outcome is still the same. It's incorrect, but Flock is going by the impression that the FAA states that the AMA regulations must be followed (because they are a CBO as indicated by the FAA) and the so the effect is that the AMA is requiring people to do certain things. Again, the effect is exactly the same.

 

[flockshot]

It's not a way to get around it. If you think any CBO can dictate any regulations they want on anyone/everyone (you still are not clear if you think each person needs to obey all CBO rules or if each person needs to pick one CBO) than there are going to a million different rules that we all need to be following. There are many HOAs, townships, counties, cities and states that have their own regulations. Are you following all of these no matter where you are?

Let me see if I can be more clear.
To qualify as a drone driver, the Government of the United States gives me two choices. (1) I can get a part 107 license and fly under those rules or, (2) I can fly my drone under the rules of a Community Based Organization and disregard part 107. I can choose either set of rules that I want to. I can NOT however take the parts of 107 that I like and the parts of the CBO rules that I like. It is 100% one or the other.
The law is that I must abide by ALL the 107 rules, or ALL the AMA rules (sucks but it is the law since AMA is the only CBO we currently have). So, if you are not flying under all the CBO rules you are automatically flying subject to 107 enforcement.
To answer your question, no, I am not following all these rules no matter where I am. I am clearly in violation of the law. However, I don't want to be in violation of the law. I want the rules to change so that drone drivers like me can enjoy our hobby without having some old AMA modeler, or cop that hates drones, calling me out for violating some outdated law that was never intended to apply to my drone.
The other groups that you mention (cities, states, counties etc.) can make laws that are only valid within the boundaries of that city, state, county etc., but they are not CBO's recognized by the FAA, so not really part of this discussion. Right now, according to the FAA, the AMA is the only CBO whose rules they recognize (I hope this changes sooner rather than later). Yes you must comply 100% with all rules of the FAA or all rules of the AMA, your choice.

 

[Qoncussion]

I've been following many threads recently, where @tcope and @sar104 bridge the gap in the very vague FAA language used to give us a set of rules, or even laws, to fly by. You both make excellent points; wherein Sar sticks closer to the letter of the law (in his posts on the subject), and tcope demonstrates the problems and other potential meanings of just how very vague these restrictions are. I would mention the name of tcope's CBO, but the first (and second) rules are that no one talks about it .

After seeing soooooooooo many posts on this, each with users quoting directly from 336/101, 107 and AMA literature, it's really quite simple: The FAA failed us here - in no small part, I am certain, by having their hands tied in 2012 ~which I think has actually helped us to develop a community of droners prior to seeing a crippling set of rules put in place, which has not yet happened.

I'm waiting for the first legal precedent to be set, to see which way the tide turns on the defendant. Only then (under the current situation) will we "know" what is acceptable, and what is not. I think a good attorney could easily wiggle through the vague language. And if anyone feels the need to argue that the language is not vague... There is only ONE recognized CBO, the AMA. Why didn't they just say, "AMA"!?

In theory, we're not blatantly trying to disregard the rules. They simply don't apply to the nature of our hobby, which really took off right about the same time as the FAA getting their hands tied in 2012.

I will sit back and keep reading...

As a side note - we are not alone. We have companies like Amazon and Google on our side. If there's one thing I know about US politics, it's that money wins the race every time.

 

[sar104]

I'm not saying anything to that effect... however, the outcome is still the same. It's incorrect, but Flock is going by the impression that the FAA states that the AMA regulations must be followed (because they are a CBO as indicated by the FAA) and the so the effect is that the AMA is requiring people to do certain things. Again, the effect is exactly the same.

But until another organization that can claim to be a nationwide CBO appears, Public Law 112-95, Section 336 and its implementation, 14 CFR 101, do require you to follow the AMA guidelines in order to be able to fly under Part 101. There is no alternative game in town.

The AMA is not requiring anything though - they simply published a set of guidelines that you can choose to follow or not. If you follow them, together with the other criteria in 336 and 101, then you meet the applicability requirements of Part 101.41 and don't have to follow Part 107. But if you choose not to follow the AMA guidelines then you are not in compliance with 101.41, and instead have to operate under Part 107, with its certification requirements and everything else. It's your choice.

 

[Qoncussion]

But until another organization that can claim to be a nationwide CBO appears...

It's interesting (to me, at least) that no one has started a new CBO ~if for no other reason than to set up a new set of guidelines for the emerging technologies. I looked into the AMA years ago, and found the attitude of many members to be old school BS. Honestly, I didn't feel like joining a group where the phrase, "Well, back in my day" was commonplace. Some (many, perhaps all) of their old crony members have a serious attitude problem when it comes to using the automation tech that we have available to us. I don't feel that they represent the current state of affairs.

That said, sar104 - I think you are correct in your last post.

 

[Lopez0015]

Í think rules have to change, most of the rules are for rc planes and can't hover.. ofcorse am not trying to catch a small plane when flying

 

[sar104]

It's interesting (to me, at least) that no one has started a new CBO ~if for no other reason than to set up a new set of guidelines for the emerging technologies. I looked into the AMA years ago, and found the attitude of many members to be old school BS. Honestly, I didn't feel like joining a group where the phrase, "Well, back in my day" was commonplace. Some (many, perhaps all) of their old crony members have a serious attitude problem when it comes to using the automation tech that we have available to us. I don't feel that they represent the current state of affairs.

That said, sar104 - I think you are correct in your last post.

I've also been puzzled at the absence of even any attempts to form a national organization for recreational quad hobbyists, especially since their numbers must, by now, dwarf the numbers of traditional RC pilots. Maybe everyone simply feels that it's too easy just to look to an existing national organization, even if it doesn't seem very engaged or interested in the new breed of model aircraft.

 

[Qoncussion]

I've also been puzzled at the absence of even any attempts to form a national organization for recreational quad hobbyists, especially since their numbers must, by now, dwarf the numbers of traditional RC pilots. Maybe everyone simply feels that it's too easy just to look to an existing national organization, even if it doesn't seem very engaged or interested in the new breed of model aircraft.

Sounds like we have the formula for a good project here...

 

[zezrum]

The AMA is not requiring anything though

I'm not so sure that the AMA is so innocent here. Based on this op-ed in January, it sounds like the AMA is advocating for punishment of any hobby fliers that are not members of the AMA and are simply following their rules (or not). As stated above, $ talks, and I can only imagine if I were in management at AMA I'd be looking at how to capture membership fees from the thousands of hobby drone fliers.

I'm pretty sure the FAA is well aware that the rules are not in alignment with the hobby, as changes to the hobby are outpacing the ability for the FAA to react.

 

[sar104]

Sounds like we have the formula for a good project here...

No doubt. I don't fly under Part 101, but if you are volunteering I'm right behind you.

 

[flockshot]

As soon as these, alternate CBO's (secret or otherwise) establish a MOU (Memo of Understanding) with the FAA, I would think they will be good to go. Or, we could just go by some alternate rules and argue it in court. Either way, I don't think the AMA has my best interests at heart.

I would happily join a CBO that was dedicating it's resources to promote and protect drone drivers, as long as they were willing to get the CBO status with the FAA.

 

[Qoncussion]

No doubt. I don't fly under Part 101, but if you are volunteering I'm right behind you.

I'm strictly 101. I used to do commercial work, and will no doubt get back to it. If you want to be in charge - I'll be your #2 . Trust me, you wouldn't want me in charge (see Chaos Theory and Murphy's Law).

 

[sar104]

I'm not so sure that the AMA is so innocent here. Based on this op-ed in January, it sounds like the AMA is advocating for punishment of any hobby fliers that are not members of the AMA and are simply following their rules (or not). As stated above, $ talks, and I can only imagine if I were in management at AMA I'd be looking at how to capture membership fees from the thousands of hobby drone fliers.

I'm pretty sure the FAA is well aware that the rules are not in alignment with the hobby, as changes to the hobby are outpacing the ability for the FAA to react.

Part of the problem for the AMA is that they fear being collateral casualties if Congress decides, as it likely will in my opinion, that the special rule needs to be revoked and recreational flying needs to be properly regulated. As such, it's in their interest both to distance themselves from irresponsible flying and to make it clear that they have robust guidelines. They stop short of stating that hobbyists need to be AMA members to qualify under Part 101, but there's more than a hint of that implication in their statements. I'm sure the membership fees would be welcomed, but some of the resulting members less so, perhaps.

 

[sar104]

As soon as these, alternate CBO's (secret or otherwise) establish a MOU (Memo of Understanding) with the FAA, I would think they will be good to go. Or, we could just go by some alternate rules and argue it in court. Either way, I don't think the AMA has my best interests at heart.

I would happily join a CBO that was dedicating it's resources to promote and protect drone drivers, as long as they were willing to get the CBO status with the FAA.

And this is where you can criticize the FAA - they have never formally granted that status to any organization, including the AMA. As far as I'm aware, it's only by virtue of one letter that they wrote to the AMA that there is any written record that they do regard the AMA as such an organization.

 

[flockshot]

I'm not so sure that the AMA is so innocent here. Based on this op-ed in January, it sounds like the AMA is advocating for punishment of any hobby fliers that are not members of the AMA and are simply following their rules (or not). As stated above, $ talks, and I can only imagine if I were in management at AMA I'd be looking at how to capture membership fees from the thousands of hobby drone fliers.

I'm pretty sure the FAA is well aware that the rules are not in alignment with the hobby, as changes to the hobby are outpacing the ability for the FAA to react.

Now that you mention it, I was reading the AMA Rules for FPV yesterday and instead of referring to pilots and instructors the now refer to AMA Pilot must be on buddy box with AMA Instructor, which made me think that they were tricking people into believing that joining AMA was a must. That being said, their FPV requirements are unacceptable.