Recreational "Hand Catch" Violates Federal Law

[FLYBOYJ]

The FAA doesn't care if you had catch or not. They do not restrict it in any way.
What the FAA cares about is that you either fly under Part 107 or all the rules of a Community Based Organization such as the AMA. In order to fly as a hobbyist you must follow all AMA rules (at least until another CBO is identified). It is the AMA that expressly prohibits hand catch. If you are neither Part 107 or Hobbyist, then you are technically in violation.
Nobody will ever have legal issues over hand catch, unless it involves a question of legal liability for some sort of damage or injury, in which case a lawyer will be on it like a dog on a soup bone.

I understand that - but if your not meeting the requirements of 101.41(b) then you must meet the operational requirements of Part 107 - nothing about hand catching there. As stated, I don't see the FEDS getting involved with this

 

[gmalinow]

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.

The AMA and it’s rules are old school. The more I read about the AMA and articles by the AMA, it is evident they have a disregard for drone enthusiasts. They recently elected a new president. Several of his running mates do not accept quad’s as a legitimate RC hobby. They have several local flying fields near where I live and their club rules are “no quads allowed”. Athough the favorite during the election was open to new technology and wants to embrace it, his co-members want to keep it the “old boys club”. If you read their publications, they only recently added “token” articles related to quads, most certainly to generate revenue ftom new members.

 

[Lopez0015]

We desperately need a drone organization. AMA is doing nothing for drone community

 

[msinger]

Perhaps I can ask thee question better so that you won't just find a technicality to invalidate it.

Sorry -- I wasn't trying to find a technicality. Just sharing what the FAA told me when I asked them for a list of recognized CBOs.

What is the US Law definition of a CBO? Who determines if a CBO is recognized, as a CBO, by the courts?

These are great questions. I had no luck finding these answers from a reputable source.

 

[Chip]

The AMA and it’s rules are old school. The more I read about the AMA and articles by the AMA, it is evident they have a disregard for drone enthusiasts. They recently elected a new president. Several of his running mates do not accept quad’s as a legitimate RC hobby. They have several local flying fields near where I live and their club rules are “no quads allowed”. Athough the favorite during the election was open to new technology and wants to embrace it, his co-members want to keep it the “old boys club”. If you read their publications, they only recently added “token” articles related to quads, most certainly to generate revenue ftom new members.

When I read the last set of AMA candidate's statements, I too was surprised by the extreme hostility to quads. Your other point is also well taken. With its elitist, exclusionary attitude, can the AMA be trusted to fight to protect recreational drone flying?

 

[HighBry]

Very simple, it was not the intent of the law to prevent hand launching or hand catching drones. The intent behind this law was to prevent the unlawful touching of a drone while in flight. Just like a battery in criminal law is defined as the unlawful touching of another without their consent, the intent behind this drone law is to prevent the unwanted touching of drones in flight. In other words, you can’t knock a drone out of the sky.

 

[stonecherub]

It doesn't. You are most likely coming from the idea that all hobby flyers need to abide by all or one CBO rules. This is simply incorrect. CBO rules only need to be followed when they apply to the person in question (in this case, the person is a member of the AMA). This allows the AMA to have these rules and not be in violation of US Code. AMA rules do not apply to non-AMA members.

If you are under the impression that AMA rules apply to everyone because the AMA is a CBO, then is it all or just one CBO that people need to follow? If one, I go by the American UAV Fliers rules and there is only one rule.... we don't talk about American UAV Fliers. The FAA has not stated that the AUF is not a CBO so until someone tells me it's not, it is.

Sound absurd? Because it is. The reason CBO's are mentioned is so organizations like the AMA can have their own rules for their members. Without it, the AMA would be in violation of US Code (only the FAA can regulate airspace). But again, AMA rules only apply to AMA members.

I _really_ don't want to get into this debate for the umpteenth time so I will just leave it at that.

WOW! I'm a GEO(logist) who once flew a P2V for the NAV(y) [see left] The only three letter group I recognized in your post is FAA.

 

[flockshot]

Very simple, it was not the intent of the law to prevent hand launching or hand catching drones. The intent behind this law was to prevent the unlawful touching of a drone while in flight. Just like a battery in criminal law is defined as the unlawful touching of another without their consent, the intent behind this drone law is to prevent the unwanted touching of drones in flight. In other words, you can’t knock a drone out of the sky.

There is no ambiguity in the rule. It is clear, and concise.

 

[787steve]

YOU WILL NOT BE VIOLATING ANY LAW IF YOU HAND CATCH YOUR DRONE!
I just went back to reread the AMA safety code, and they have a new one out as of Jan.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/100.pdf

I can't find anything about hand catching in it. I did see this:
"• Stay clear of the propeller arc while starting or running any engine or motor."
and this:
"No pilot or other person should touch an outdoor model in flight, while still under power, except to divert it from striking an individual.
Which is up for discussion as to is it in flight when it is in your hand, as well as the use of "should", instead of "do not" or may not".
The only part listed as their "safety code" is on page three and has terms "will" and "will not", no "shoulds".

How about someone else have a look and checking me on this?

 

[sar104]

YOU WILL NOT BE VIOLATING ANY LAW IF YOU HAND CATCH YOUR DRONE!
I just went back to reread the AMA safety code, and they have a new one out as of Jan.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/100.pdf

I can't find anything about hand catching in it. I did see this:
"• Stay clear of the propeller arc while starting or running any engine or motor."
and this:
"No pilot or other person should touch an outdoor model in flight, while still under power, except to divert it from striking an individual.
Which is up for discussion as to is it in flight when it is in your hand, as well as the use of "should", instead of "do not" or may not".
The only part listed as their "safety code" is on page three and has terms "will" and "will not", no "shoulds".

How about someone else have a look and checking me on this?

It's not in their Safety Code but it is in their referenced Safety Handbook, which is the one that you linked. Page 8, under "Radio Control":

"No pilot or other person should touch an outdoor model in ight, while still under power, except to divert it from striking an individual."​

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It's not in their Safety Code but it is in their referenced Safety Handbook, which is the one that you linked. Page 8, under "Radio Control":

"No pilot or other person should touch an outdoor model in ight, while still under power, except to divert it from striking an individual."​

So a hobbyist doesn't use the AMA's safety guidelines or handbook?

Revert to 107 - nothing about hand catching.

AMA' safety guidelines are recognized by the FAA but there's nothing binding them as "the only game in town." I know of other organizations that have put out sUAV safety guidelines for hobbyists and I see nothing wrong with using them in lieu of the AMA providing nothing is conflicting with 336 or FAR 101.41

 

[sar104]

So a hobbyists doesn't use the AMA's safety guidelines or handbook?

No - I think the suggestion is to follow both the code and the handbook. The former is just a very abbreviated version of the latter.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

YOU WILL NOT BE VIOLATING ANY LAW IF YOU HAND CATCH YOUR DRONE!
I just went back to reread the AMA safety code, and they have a new one out as of Jan.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/100.pdf

I can't find anything about hand catching in it. I did see this:
"• Stay clear of the propeller arc while starting or running any engine or motor."
and this:
"No pilot or other person should touch an outdoor model in flight, while still under power, except to divert it from striking an individual.
Which is up for discussion as to is it in flight when it is in your hand, as well as the use of "should", instead of "do not" or may not".
The only part listed as their "safety code" is on page three and has terms "will" and "will not", no "shoulds".

How about someone else have a look and checking me on this?

Again, there's nothing making the AMA the only game in town

 

[FLYBOYJ]

No - I think the suggestion is to follow both the code and the handbook. The former is just a very abbreviated version of the latter.

Again, the AMA is not the final authority on this. As I think we both recognize is the FAA has left this wide opened

 

[Flawless]

Going to quote my own post from earlier at one more attempt to settle this:

Considering the original wording specifies "in flight", you are not breaking the law by hand catching your drone during landing.

They are different circumstances, as evinced by rules referring to taking off near objects/people, and flying over objects/people at a distance.

If they were not different circumstances, you would be breaking the law if someone wandered within 50m of your drone while you were landing - even if it was you.

 

[787steve]

Again, the AMA is not the final authority on this. As I think we both recognize is the FAA has left this wide opened

FAA didn't leave it open. Congress did. The whole CBO mess comes from the same law which restricts the FAA from touching this. For now.

 

[sar104]

Again, the AMA is not the final authority on this. As I think we both recognize is the FAA has left this wide opened

Completely agree. It's just that so far there have not been many (any?) other candidates to follow.

 

[sar104]

So a hobbyist doesn't use the AMA's safety guidelines or handbook?

Revert to 107 - nothing about hand catching.

AMA' safety guidelines are recognized by the FAA but there's nothing binding them as "the only game in town." I know of other organizations that have put out sUAV safety guidelines for hobbyists and I see nothing wrong with using them in lieu of the AMA providing nothing is conflicting with 336 or FAR 101.41

I'm still inclined to think that the hand-catching concerns raised in this thread are a non-issue but, for those who may be concerned, the lack of anything about hand-catching in Part 107 might well be a good reassurance.

Are you aware of any other organizations that have a credible claim to being a nationwide CBO, with reasonable guidelines? DroneUp has been mentioned, but its guidelines are a strange mixture of 101 and 107, and are not compliant with either.

 

[787steve]

Again, there's nothing making the AMA the only game in town

Unless it is the only game in town. I think Congress is going to have to revisit this, as they have created a real mess. They don't seem to have established much criteria for the CBOs.
"; (2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;"

Earlier in this thread was a reference to Droneup. It was mentioned that it would not work, because some of it's safety guidelines (VLOS, etc), go against Sec 336 (VLOS guidance). I checked out their site and they do require VLOS. They would seem to me to qualify under Sec 336 as a CBO. But for many on this board, they do not offer all the relief they are looking for. At first glance, I like what I see. Definitely worth looking into further.
Here is their safety code:
DroneUp Pilot Safety Guidelines

In addition to our Standard of Conduct, DroneUp pilots must agree to the following safety guidlines (Updated Feb 15, 2018):

• Unmanned aircraft must weigh less than 55 lbs. (25 kg).
• Visual line-of-sight (VLOS) only; the unmanned aircraft must remain within VLOS of the remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small UAS. Alternatively, the unmanned aircraft must remain within VLOS of a dedicated visual observer (VO) in close proximity to the pilot. The flight operation may use a VO but that is not required.
• First-person view (FPV) goggles can be used by the pilot only when a VO is also present and in close proximity to the pilot.
• At all times the small unmanned aircraft must remain close enough to the remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small UAS for those people to be capable of seeing the aircraft with vision unaided by any device other than corrective lenses.
• Small unmanned aircraft may not be operated over any persons not directly participating in the operation who are not under a covered structure or not inside a covered stationary vehicle.
• Daylight-only operations: small unmanned aircraft must operate in daylight or may operate in civil twilight (30 minutes before official sunrise to 30 minutes after official sunset, local time) with appropriate anti-collision lighting.
• Unmanned aircraft operators must yield right of way to other aircraft.
• Maximum groundspeed of the unmanned aircraft is 100 mph (87 knots).
• Maximum altitude of 400 feet above ground level (AGL) or, if higher than 400 feet AGL, remain within 400 feet of a structure.
• Minimum weather visibility of 3 miles from control station with 500 feet of visibility below the clouds and above the aircraft and 2000 feet horizontally between the clouds and the aircraft.
• Operations in Class B, C, D and E airspace are allowed with the required Air Traffic Control (ATC) permission.
• Operations in Class G airspace are allowed without ATC permission.
• No person may act as a remote pilot in command or VO for more than one unmanned aircraft operation at one time.
• No operations from a moving aircraft.
• No operations from a moving vehicle unless the operation is over a sparsely populated area.
• No careless or reckless operations.
• No carriage of hazardous materials.
• Requires preflight inspection by the remote pilot in command.
• A person may not operate a small unmanned aircraft if he or she knows or has reason to know of any physical or mental condition that would interfere with the safe operation of a small UAS.
• External load operations are allowed if the object being carried by the unmanned aircraft is securely attached and does not adversely affect the flight characteristics or controllability of the aircraft.
• The pilot and the aircraft cannot endanger the safety of the National Airspace System (NAS).
• DroneUp pilots responding to DroneUp flight missions that may be near emergency responders will monitor the DroneUp mission communication channels to ensure they are following the orders of the emergency responders. If there is any doubt about possible interference with emergency responders, stay on the ground.

 

[sar104]

Unless it is the only game in town. I think Congress is going to have to revisit this, as they have created a real mess. They don't seem to have established much criteria for the CBOs.
"; (2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;"

Earlier in this thread was a reference to Droneup. It was mentioned that it would not work, because some of it's safety guidelines (VLOS, etc), go against Sec 336 (VLOS guidance). I checked out their site and they do require VLOS. They would seem to me to qualify under Sec 336 as a CBO. But for many on this board, they do not offer all the relief they are looking for. At first glance, I like what I see. Definitely worth looking into further.
Here is their safety code:
DroneUp Pilot Safety Guidelines

In addition to our Standard of Conduct, DroneUp pilots must agree to the following safety guidlines (Updated Feb 15, 2018):

• Unmanned aircraft must weigh less than 55 lbs. (25 kg).
• Visual line-of-sight (VLOS) only; the unmanned aircraft must remain within VLOS of the remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small UAS. Alternatively, the unmanned aircraft must remain within VLOS of a dedicated visual observer (VO) in close proximity to the pilot. The flight operation may use a VO but that is not required.
• First-person view (FPV) goggles can be used by the pilot only when a VO is also present and in close proximity to the pilot.
• At all times the small unmanned aircraft must remain close enough to the remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small UAS for those people to be capable of seeing the aircraft with vision unaided by any device other than corrective lenses.
• Small unmanned aircraft may not be operated over any persons not directly participating in the operation who are not under a covered structure or not inside a covered stationary vehicle.
• Daylight-only operations: small unmanned aircraft must operate in daylight or may operate in civil twilight (30 minutes before official sunrise to 30 minutes after official sunset, local time) with appropriate anti-collision lighting.
• Unmanned aircraft operators must yield right of way to other aircraft.
• Maximum groundspeed of the unmanned aircraft is 100 mph (87 knots).
• Maximum altitude of 400 feet above ground level (AGL) or, if higher than 400 feet AGL, remain within 400 feet of a structure.
• Minimum weather visibility of 3 miles from control station with 500 feet of visibility below the clouds and above the aircraft and 2000 feet horizontally between the clouds and the aircraft.
• Operations in Class B, C, D and E airspace are allowed with the required Air Traffic Control (ATC) permission.
• Operations in Class G airspace are allowed without ATC permission.
• No person may act as a remote pilot in command or VO for more than one unmanned aircraft operation at one time.
• No operations from a moving aircraft.
• No operations from a moving vehicle unless the operation is over a sparsely populated area.
• No careless or reckless operations.
• No carriage of hazardous materials.
• Requires preflight inspection by the remote pilot in command.
• A person may not operate a small unmanned aircraft if he or she knows or has reason to know of any physical or mental condition that would interfere with the safe operation of a small UAS.
• External load operations are allowed if the object being carried by the unmanned aircraft is securely attached and does not adversely affect the flight characteristics or controllability of the aircraft.
• The pilot and the aircraft cannot endanger the safety of the National Airspace System (NAS).
• DroneUp pilots responding to DroneUp flight missions that may be near emergency responders will monitor the DroneUp mission communication channels to ensure they are following the orders of the emergency responders. If there is any doubt about possible interference with emergency responders, stay on the ground.

But they clearly don't require VLOS - they state that a visual observer may be used instead. That's not compliant. And they state that operations in C, D and E airspace require ATC permission, which is not true, and that operation in Class G does not need permission which, while technically true, is likely to lead people to fail 101.41 (e).

If they tidied up those issues I think they would make a good case to be considered a CBO under 101.41 (b).