Recreational "Hand Catch" Violates Federal Law

[tcope]

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.

Don't agree.... but we already know this from prior threads.

There is no information to show what other CBO's exist. We know from the terminology and from the way the FAA talks about CBO's that the AMA is not the only CBO. As mentioned in a post above, if CBO meant only the AMA, they would have stated the AMA.

CBO was put in to leave the door open for organizations to make their own rules at their events. So when the AMA tells it's members that they can't fly higher then 100' at a drone race.

Why would Congress come up with a set up guidelines for hobby fliers only to allow for any rules to be made by another one other than the FAA? This means that Congress was telling the FAA they cannot make ruled against hobby flight but everyone would then need to follow any rules made up by the AMA (or CBO, or.... who knows as that makes no sense).

Lastly, the FAA has stated that the AMA is an example of a CBO. They never said the AMA was the only CBO or that there were not others.

 

[flockshot]

The more I learn, the more I think 107 is the easiest way to go. The rules aren't made by a bunch of guys who fly around the traffic pattern upside down to impress each other and don't like drones anyway. It's just knowing how to read a vfr chart and some 1960's vintage weather report abbreviations along with understanding that the remote pilot in command is responsible for everything. Heck, the FAA will give you a commercial drone license even if you have never even seen a drone. It don't get easier than that.

 

[sar104]

Don't agree.... but we already know this from prior threads.

There is no information to show what other CBO's exist. We know from the terminology and from the way the FAA talks about CBO's that the AMA is not the only CBO. As mentioned in a post above, if CBO meant only the AMA, they would have stated the AMA.

CBO was put in to leave the door open for organizations to make their own rules at their events. So when the AMA tells it's members that they can't fly higher then 100' at a drone race.

Why would Congress come up with a set up guidelines for hobby fliers only to allow for any rules to be made by another one other than the FAA? This means that Congress was telling the FAA they cannot make ruled against hobby flight but everyone would then need to follow any rules made up by the AMA (or CBO, or.... who knows as that makes no sense).

Lastly, the FAA has stated that the AMA is an example of a CBO. They never said the AMA was the only CBO or that there were not others.

I agree that the FAA has made no statements about other CBOs, but is any other organization even claiming to be a nationwide CBO? The key word there is "nationwide" - local events clearly don't meet that criterion so I'm not sure that it can have been used to allow for local events. I would be perfectly happy to argue that other organizations were equally valid if they even come close to meeting that description.

Don't ask me to defend Congress on this one - the special rule was an ill-considered piece of junk in my opinion.

 

[sar104]

The more I learn, the more I think 107 is the easiest way to go. The rules aren't made by a bunch of guys who fly around the traffic pattern upside down to impress each other and don't like drones anyway. It's just knowing how to read a vfr chart and some 1960's vintage weather report abbreviations along with understanding that the remote pilot in command is responsible for everything. Heck, the FAA will give you a commercial drone license even if you have never even seen a drone. It don't get easier than that.

That would be my conclusion too, even if I were only flying recreationally.

 

[xHOUGHx]

Very interesting… I am quite curious to see how this would actually be enforced.

Not at all

 

[flockshot]

There are some federal laws that prevent an entity of Government like the FAA, from recommending, or requiring any type of membership, or indicating one organization is better than an other. That being said, the AMA was the only one stepping up to be recognized, as even having a CBO, so they are used as the only available 'example' of a CBO.
As for 'nation wide'. There is probably enough diversity in this thread to qualify as nation wide.

There are some fledgling groups out there that can put up a set of drone rules that are fair and no more restrictive than necessary, while providing the public with their privacy, safety, and peace and quiet. When that happens there will be plenty ready to join.

 

[tcope]

I agree that the FAA has made no statements about other CBOs, but is any other organization even claiming to be a nationwide CBO? The key word there is "nationwide" - local events clearly don't meet that criterion so I'm not sure that it can have been used to allow for local events. I would be perfectly happy to argue that other organizations were equally valid if they even come close to meeting that description.

Bottom line is, we don't know. In this thread I'm not really claiming to know. What I _am_ pointing out is where the thought that a person needs to follow a CBO one certain CBO or all CBO's in order to fly under Section 336 makes no sense (if they are not a member of that CBO). Some people say you need to follow one CBO. Some say you need to follow one and since there is only one named, its the AMA. Some people say you need to follow them all. None of those things really make sense when you look into it.

At the end of the day, I'll fly higher then 400' when safe, I won't notify _all_ airports (only one's with active aircraft), I will fly beyond VLOS on occasion, I'll post videos on YouTube without Part 107 and the FAA can come knocking on my door if they want. I'll not be holding my breath.

Oh, and I'll hand catch if I feel like it.

 

[flockshot]

Bottom line is, we don't know. In this thread I'm not really claiming to know. What I _am_ pointing out is where the thought that a person needs to follow a CBO one certain CBO or all CBO's in order to fly under Section 336 makes no sense (if they are not a member of that CBO). Some people say you need to follow one CBO. Some say you need to follow one and since there is only one named, its the AMA. Some people say you need to follow them all. None of those things really make sense when you look into it.

At the end of the day, I'll fly higher then 400' when safe, I won't notify _all_ airports (only one's with active aircraft), I will fly beyond VLOS on occasion, I'll post videos on YouTube without Part 107 and the FAA can come knocking on my door if they want. I'll not be holding my breath.

Oh, and I'll hand catch if I feel like it.

This is how it should be. I am in complete agreement with you methods and practices. That is what I want legal drone driving to look like.
This entire thread is a exercise in the absurd. The absurdity of the AMA rules and the recognition that what we have is not adequate.

 

[rfc]

Could someone explain to me what "operate under (insert 107,336, 101, AMA etc. here)" means in the context of a single flight? Is there anything that says you can't take off as a recreational flyer using AMA rules, then land under 107 (assuming you're licensed), and catch your UAS?

 

[flockshot]

If you want a real hoot, go check out the AMA requirements for FPV flying (spoiler alert: be sure to find that buddy box connection on your controller)

 

[flockshot]

Could someone explain to me what "operate under (insert 107,336, 101, AMA etc. here)" means in the context of a single flight? Is there anything that says you can't take off under 107 (assuming you're licensed), and land as a recreational/hobiest, and catch your UAS?

Yes, there is something that says you can not do that.

 

[Qoncussion]

Could someone explain to me what "operate under (insert 107,336, 101, AMA etc. here)" means in the context of a single flight? Is there anything that says you can't take off as a recreational flyer using AMA rules, then land under 107 (assuming you're licensed), and catch your UAS?

You decide *before* each flight if it's 101 or 107. From takeoff to landing, a single flight may only fall under one part.

 

[sar104]

Bottom line is, we don't know. In this thread I'm not really claiming to know. What I _am_ pointing out is where the thought that a person needs to follow a CBO one certain CBO or all CBO's in order to fly under Section 336 makes no sense (if they are not a member of that CBO). Some people say you need to follow one CBO. Some say you need to follow one and since there is only one named, its the AMA. Some people say you need to follow them all. None of those things really make sense when you look into it.

But 336 clearly says that you have to follow the guidelines of a nationwide CBO. Not all CBOs or any particular CBO. I'm not sure I agree that the statement makes no sense - it's a clear enough statement. Now if you are changing the discussion from the question of what the law requires to whether or not the law is a sensible law, then that's a different matter.

At the end of the day, I'll fly higher then 400' when safe, I won't notify _all_ airports (only one's with active aircraft), I will fly beyond VLOS on occasion, I'll post videos on YouTube without Part 107 and the FAA can come knocking on my door if they want. I'll not be holding my breath.

Oh, and I'll hand catch if I feel like it.

There is no 400 ft rule in the AMA handbook, so no problem there. I think that only notifying active airports (a 101, not AMA requirement) absolutely meets the intent of the 101.41. BVLOS is inconsistent with Public Law 112-95, Section 336 (c) (2), but not specifically mentioned in 14 CFR 101; I think it would only be a problem if there were other problems with a flight or if it were flaunted on YouTube or similar. Posting on YouTube is not necessarily inconsistent with 336 or 101 unless it is a monetized channel. Hand catching is not going to be an issue.

 

[thongbong]

When did the AMA have the legistlative power to make "laws"?

 

[sar104]

When did the AMA have the legistlative power to make "laws"?

They don't have that power, and they haven't attempted to make any laws.

 

[tcope]

There is no 400 ft rule in the AMA handbook, so no problem there. I think that only notifying active airports (a 101, not AMA requirement) absolutely meets the intent of the 101.41. BVLOS is inconsistent with Public Law 112-95, Section 336 (c) (2), but not specifically mentioned in 14 CFR 101; I think it would only be a problem if there were other problems with a flight or if it were flaunted on YouTube or similar. Posting on YouTube is not necessarily inconsistent with 336 or 101 unless it is a monetized channel. Hand catching is not going to be an issue.

I'm not sure what the AMA requires, I'm not a member. Bu this still does not stop the FAA from pushing this information... still:



Safety Guidance

• Fly at or below 400 feet
  
• Keep your aircraft within your line of sight
  
• Be aware of FAA airspace requirements
  
• Never fly near other aircraft, especially near airports
  
• Never fly over groups of people, public events, or stadiums full of people
  
• Never fly near emergency response efforts such as wildfires
  
• Never fly under the influence of drugs or alcohol
  

To fly under the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, you must follow community-based aero-modeling club safety guidelines and fly within the programming of a nation-wide community-based aero-modeling organization.

Safety "guidance"... we know Section 336 requires VLOS as stated above but in the same area the FAA states, "Fly at or below 400 feet". So they are mixing regulations with recommendations and not being clear about the difference? The FAA would not mislead (lie) to anyone, would they?

Also, when we register what was the agreement that we were required to accept? Does anyone have it copied? Seems that you can't gain access to it once you are registered.

 

[tcope]

They don't have that power, and they haven't attempted to make any laws.

They don't and they are not creating laws. The argument is that Congress is stating that you need to follow their rules as a CBO. The requirement that you need to follow everything the AMA says, would be the law (not that I agree).

 

[sar104]

I'm not sure what the AMA requires, I'm not a member. Bu this still does not stop the FAA from pushing this information... still:



Safety Guidance

• Fly at or below 400 feet
• Keep your aircraft within your line of sight
• Be aware of FAA airspace requirements
• Never fly near other aircraft, especially near airports
• Never fly over groups of people, public events, or stadiums full of people
• Never fly near emergency response efforts such as wildfires
• Never fly under the influence of drugs or alcohol

To fly under the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, you must follow community-based aero-modeling club safety guidelines and fly within the programming of a nation-wide community-based aero-modeling organization.

Safety "guidance"... we know Section 336 requires VLOS as stated above but in the same area the FAA states, "Fly at or below 400 feet". So they are mixing regulations with recommendations and not being clear about the difference? The FAA would not mislead (lie) to anyone, would they?

That's labelled "Safety Guidance" and I don't see anything in the bulleted list claiming to have the force of law. #2 is codified in Part 101.41 but that's only applicability. If you don't follow it then you simply fail to meet the requirements of Part 101. The final sentence is accurate per 336 and Part 101. Is there a problem that you see here?

Also, when we register what was the agreement that we were required to accept? Does anyone have it copied? Seems that you can't gain access to it once you are registered.

The current registration site states:

SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT

To fly under the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, you must:

Follow community-based aero-modeling club safety rules

Fly for hobby or recreation only

Keep your aircraft within your sight

Notify the airport and air traffic control tower prior to flying within 5 miles of an airport

Never fly near other aircraft​

 

[MaverickVB]

I do hand catch a lot because it is perfectly safe with a mavic (with landing protection off).
With an Inspire1 I use it on the boat with someone trained to catch it.

Keep landing protection on. Let it see your hand as the ground level. Keep the stick down and it just softly lands. No issues. Don’t try to grab it last minute or the props will spin up fast. Just let it land on your hand palm flat.

Plus to add face the cam out from you.

 

[Jam Master Jay]

It could easily be argued that everyone here is a member of an international community based organization called “Mavic pilots”.