Recreational "Hand Catch" Violates Federal Law

[787steve]

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.

I understand what you are saying. But, I do not believe their guidelines are unreasonable. Do their guidelines need to be consistent with FARs, when they are designed to be used under Sec 336, which is outside of the FAA's area? If they had rules which seemed to be generally unsafe, I would see a problem. But, I find their safety guidelines on first blush to be quite reasonably thought out. I am hoping they are going to turn out to be good UAV group which can provide us with a UAV centric alternative to the AMA. I would recommend anyone with issues with the AMA to give them a look. I am.

 

[787steve]

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."​

I wonder if the "should not", doesn't weaken it as a requirement. To me, "should not" is advisory in nature. "May not", or "Will not" seems to be more requirement oriented. But we both know that no one would ever be charged for hand catching, anyway. Still, an interesting quest.

 

[787steve]

I think the VO mentioned in the VLOS is intended to cover FPV ops, as the first words in the second bullet are" VLOS only". That could be cleaned up for sure.
I think the part that will cause the most people to dislike is the 400' AGL ceiling (except within 400' of a structure). (not a problem for me) But this would explain their requirement to notify ATC, as ,if my memory is correct, if you are in C,D, or E and 400' AGL or below, you are in the proximity of an airport. Correct?? A bit of a strange work around on the wording, and still has the 101.41 (e) issue, but they are pretty workable to me.
I just want reasonable rules to let me qual under Sec 336 without having to dig through subjects like control line flight, free flight, turbine powered flight, etc. Drone rules for drones. And this is looking pretty good.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

Ya know you're right, I'll stand corrected Steve, agree 100%

 

[Turn11]

The AMA strictly prohibits touching any unmanned aircraft while it is in flight, except to prevent it from hitting someone.
Hand catch violates federal law, if flying recreationally, because you are not abiding by AMA rules.

Is AMA the "Academy of Model Aeronautics", a non-profit organization dedicated to the promotion of model aviation as a recognized sport as well as a recreational activity. If so, how can it make federal law?

 

[microlinux]

Is AMA the "Academy of Model Aeronautics", a non-profit organization dedicated to the promotion of model aviation as a recognized sport as well as a recreational activity. If so, how can it make federal law?

Not law per-se, but flying under 336 requires that you "Follow community-based safety guidelines and fly within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization.".

Which is rather vague, but the AMA is supposedly one. Arguably you could create your own "nationwide community-based organization" and follow those guidelines where they don't conflict with rules direct from the FAA. I don't think they've ever been very clear about exactly what a "nationwide community-based organization" is.

 

[Turn11]

I don't think they've ever been very clear about exactly what a "nationwide community-based organization" is.

Sounds like grey area at best.

 

[microlinux]

Sounds like grey area at best.

Pretty much. They're hamstrung from creating new regulations for hobby fliers, I think this is kind of and end-around attempt to create "rules".

 

[Turn11]

regulations for hobby fliers

Back in the 50's (yes I'm older than dirt) there was an AMA. It was American Modeler Association as I best remember. I flew dual line model airplanes that were "gas" engines (same engines and fuel as the RC planes of today). When I searched for "American Modeler Association" Google returned only "Academy of Model Aeronautics"

I wonder if it is the same organization that just reinvented itself? Maybe should just leave well enough alone. Hogan's Goat isn't half bad now. Just you wait and see how the feds could screw it up.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Not law per-se, but flying under 336 requires that you "Follow community-based safety guidelines and fly within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization.".

Which is rather vague, but the AMA is supposedly one. Arguably you could create your own "nationwide community-based organization" and follow those guidelines where they don't conflict with rules direct from the FAA. I don't think they've ever been very clear about exactly what a "nationwide community-based organization" is.

Correct all around. The big game changer is the AMA has a letter from the FAA where their program is "recognized" so its pretty hard to argue their validity, but as you say the vagueness of all this leaves room for others to develop their own.

Maybe I'll write one and sell it for $9.95 on an infomercial! Buy one, get a second free!

 

[787steve]

I don't think they even said it has to agree with the FAA's rules! The only description is nationwide and community based. But if we came up with one with no real restrictions, I think the wording would get a bit more specific in a hurry.

 

[Tinmania]

Back in the 50's (yes I'm older than dirt) there was an AMA. It was American Modeler Association as I best remember. I flew dual line model airplanes that were "gas" engines (same engines and fuel as the RC planes of today). When I searched for "American Modeler Association" Google returned only "Academy of Model Aeronautics"

I wonder if it is the same organization that just reinvented itself? Maybe should just leave well enough alone. Hogan's Goat isn't half bad now. Just you wait and see how the feds could screw it up.

Apologies but I believe you are mistaken. AMA has been the Academy of Model Aeronautics since the 1930's. They were briefly known as AAMA, American Academy for Model Aeronautics but changed to AMA after a few years. This was almost certainly the same AMA you remember from the 1950's, since they were "the" organization for control line flying in the 1950s (as well as radio control).

Good news is the AMA likely changed its name before you were born, and hopefully that makes you feel at least a little younger.

Oh one more thing, the engines you almost surely flew back then were glow engines (glow plug) that ran on a nitromethane/methanol mixture, plus lubricant, and not "gas" as in gasoline. Indeed those kinds of engines, and fuel, are still around but are now usually referred to as nitro engines (or as I call them: slime engines, due to the amount of lubricant sprayed out of the exhaust). However, there is another class that do run on actual gasoline, albeit 2-stroke so mixed with a small amount of oil (and no slime). I flew giant scale R/C gas until a few years ago. My last plane, a 50% scale aircraft, had a 200cc four-cylinder gas engine. You can buy a dji Inspire 2, with camera, for less than just that engine cost (what was I thinking??? lol).

Back to the AMA... they may not be the best face to represent the quad/drone part of this hobby, but they are surely better than nothing. A decade ago when "drone" was akin to "Predator" and the feds were looking for a way to reign in R/C flying, in general, the AMA was proactive in dealing with the FAA and other agencies. They lobbied to exclude the hobbyist community from regulations. They were mostly successful, and is why you have "community based organization" written into the regulations.

I also think, despite the latest AMA president's statements, that they do realize they need to attract people from the drone segment. I mean, even at Best Buy, there are (safety) pamphlets in the drone section from the AMA. It's not just a token of support, it's in the AMA's best interest to keep quad flying from being overly regulated, else they risk the same fate.





Mike