Ok, so if your honor would like to explain what rationale there is for Part 107 pilots to broadcast on CTAF, we are all ears. Tell us where the FAA has recommended Part 107 pilots to broadcast on CTAF.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
USA Part 107 Flights in Controlled Airspace
- Thread starter Dave Armbrust
- Start date
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
You sir, are the only one telling people what the FAA policy is. I never once said that the FAA recommends that 107 operators broadcast on CTAF. I am countering your point from above, and I QUOTE:
The FAA does not want UAS operators broadcasting on CTAFs. Frankly, I don't think anyone does.
The rationale for ANYONE broadcasting on CTAF is to inform air traffic of your current position or your intentions. You may want to write that one down... you may see it on your next bi-annual ride.
You are smug and arrogant, so allow me to speak in language that you understand. Until the 107 was introduced, YOU sir, were the one that nobody wanted to hear on the radio. I am sure you feel great not having the absolute lowest rating that someone can possibly obtain and still be called a pilot. There is a new guy in town to whip around... Yeah!
Instead of coming to a forum that is quite literally dedicated to informing and educating 107 operators and then belittling and putting them down, why don't you try and reach out and educate them and lift them up to your level, rather them make them feel lower than you. A CTAF call is not a difficult thing to accomplish, and you should absolutely be ashamed of yourself for your conduct here.
Last edited:
I never said anything about policy, law, or rules. I'm stating my opinion. And my opinion is based on the fact that UAS pilots are not required to be trained or tested on CTAF broadcast procedures. One day there will be far more UAS traffic than manned traffic, and if every UAS operator were to broadcast position via radio it would be mayhem.
But, if you need evidence, the FAA does not require that UAS pilots be trained or tested on CTAF broadcasting in any way, so one could construe that as the FAA not wanting them to do it. FAA UAS expert Kevin Morris has said publicly that the workload of ATC and manned aircraft pilots would be increased if UAS pilots were to make position broadcasts or airspace requests on radio, negatively affecting manned aircraft safety (admittedly he was talking about towered airports at the time, but the same pilot workload concept applies to non-towered airports). If the FAA wanted it, wouldn't they require or at least recommend it?
And what would be the purpose? It's YOUR responsibility as a UAS operator to see and avoid manned aircraft. If you're doing your job, there is no reason to burden a manned aircraft pilot with unnecessary CTAF chatter. That's why monitoring the CTAF is specifically mentioned in part 107 rules and testing - it's a resource to help you see and avoid.
And you know nothing of me. In fact, I am quite proud of my part 107 ticket. I'm an ambassador for UAS pilots having appeared in the local press and on local television to discuss safety and benefits of UAS operations. I am very publicly an advocate for UAS operators and the rights and responsibilities of the profession.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
I have maintained a private pilots license since 1983, probably longer than some of you people have been alive (not that that means anything). I own and know how to use a handheld aircraft band radio. I will use it if I feel the need to notify aircraft in class G airspace of my intentions. Meaning that if I am doing UAS operations and may not see an aircraft taking off or approaching an airport before I have time to see and avoid I will let my intentions be known as to my location and altitude. In any thing else than class G airspace within 5 miles of an airport I will follow the written statement telling me what to do on my FAA 107 waiver for that particular area I am flying my sUAS in.
Edit: or whatever my COA says I need to do when using my 333 exemption. My 333 exemption specifically states that I must contact an airport using aviation frequencies.
Edit: or whatever my COA says I need to do when using my 333 exemption. My 333 exemption specifically states that I must contact an airport using aviation frequencies.
Last edited:
You could not be more correct Sir. I have a very specific COA that I was issued in which my flight operations are less than a mile from the approach path of Rwy 03 at KGEG, which is a Class C International Airport. It not only requires me to to keep in constant contact via radio, but it requires me to call for engine start, takeoff and termination of operations. Thank you for your contribution.
@Jason1234, the purpose of my reply to your post above was only to have you provide a reference for statement that the FAA does not want UAS operators to broadcast on CTAF. Now that you have indicated that it was your opinion, and not the FAA stance, I don't think there is any need to continue along those lines. Like @SanCap, I have been flying for decades and have flown all over the world.
I would like to provide you with an example, if I may, in which I used my ground to air radio broadcast on CTAF, and provide a good example as to when it may be advised, not required, to do so. I had a film shoot at the above location. Our location to start off with was at the very south end of Lake McCall. Because McCall municipal airport is a Class E, non towered airport, I could legally fly anywhere, to include straight down the active runway if I choose. Below 700 feet is class G airspace, so I am only required to provide notification to that airport. I can, and am required to perform that function. I did that in the form of a NOTAM. Furthermore, a conversation with the airport manager let me know that the prevailing winds were out of the south and incoming traffic is typically landing to the south. Given this information, I chose to keep my ICOM radio on the CTAF frequency and when I head an aircraft on approach, or entering the traffic pattern, I would then broadcast my own CTAF call indicating that I was at the south side of lake, operating the surface to 100 feet AGL and that I would be "No Factor".
In the instance above, it would be very easy for an incoming aircraft to assume there was a danger of collision if he were to see my sUAS. He may then decide to file a safety of flight even with the FAA which are being recorded and made available to the public. You can find that file HERE.
It is my opinion that the biggest threat to aviation is ignorance, I choose to err on the side of caution and would recommend anyone else to do the same. I talked to three incoming aircraft that day. Making them aware of my presence, and letting them know that I had them in sight and would remain clear (as I am required to do) only makes the aviation community safer and more aware.
So, in short, I never meant to infer that the FAA is making it mandatory (unless a COA dictates) that a remote pilot communicate on any aviation channel. I am a FAASTeam Lead Representative, and my duties as such involve education, outreach and safety training. The expert that you have referred to above (Kevin Morris), is a FAASTeam Program Manager, and I am sure that he would echo my sentiments in this area. My FAASTeam Program Manager is Robert Ticknor, and I operate out of the Spokane FSDO. We are actually planning a regional training event coming up in March in which these very topic will be discussed. I hope this post clears not only the air, but my point of view on the topic up a little bit.
I respect your opinion, but disagree that it should be recommended. I'm blending my experience from each perspective (manned vs UAS) and have concluded that it's not the right solution going forward. We need technology, not squeezing a square peg into a round hole. I have met plenty of part 107 Pilots that have no biz on a CTAF and many manned aircraft pilots that concur.
May I suggest that you do a poll, or perhaps get a private org to do it. Just ask manned aircraft pilots with a variety of ratings if they want people with (only) part 107 UAS licenses broadcasting on CTAF. If you phrase it that was I suspect that over 80% would say no way.
The last thing I want on short final is an advisory that there may be a UAS in the approach path. If there is no concern, why broadcast it. I understand your point about telling an incoming aircraft that there is no concern so they won't react poorly if they spot a UAS, but there should be any concern anyway. There is enough cockpit management going on without having to listen to and process a "nothing to see here" advisory.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
As a lowly holder of a RPIC, I would like to point out that as a matter of regulation and testing, those holding a RPIC are in fact required to be familiar with radio procedures.....there is even a test!
From the FAA Remote Pilot Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Study Guide:
"The information in this study guide was arranged according to the knowledge areas that are covered on the airman knowledge test for a Remote Pilot Certificate with a Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Rating as required by Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 107, section 107.73(a). The knowledge areas are as follows:
From the FAA Remote Pilot Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Study Guide:
"The information in this study guide was arranged according to the knowledge areas that are covered on the airman knowledge test for a Remote Pilot Certificate with a Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Rating as required by Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 107, section 107.73(a). The knowledge areas are as follows:
7. Radio communication procedures;
oh and this one....
11. Airport operations; and"
There is definitely a use case, even according to the FAA, for a Remote Pilot to be on and using the CTAF. For example, mapping a traffic collision scene at the outer perimeter of a Class D Airport and you experience a lost link or fly away. Just my lowly RPIC two cents, but what do I know?oh and this one....
11. Airport operations; and"
Lake McCall is awesome, that whole drive from Boise is amazing, getting aerial video of the train that runs through there would be legit!
It actually WAS legit. Unfortunately I was working under a very strict NDA and cannot release the footage or I would show it to you.
Hope to see it, I make that drive all the time. I live in Boise myself. There are definitely some good places to fly here.
Sent from my iPhone using InspirePilots
Sent from my iPhone using InspirePilots
Have a quick question about the example above. The flight area is identified as Class E with a base of 700' so 0-699 would be Class G and, as stated, you could fly down the runway. My question is about the statement "...I am only required to provide notification to the airport...I did that in the form of a NOTAM." My 107 prep class instructor, who is a licensed pilot with 30 years of flying, told me no notification of the airport would be required byPart 107 in those circumstances, but that a NOTAM is always a good idea, but optional. Which is correct?
Sent from my iPad using InspirePilots
When I flew this, 107 was still in planning. I actually flew this under a 333 exemption which the 5nm of a "public airport" requirement was still a restriction. Sorry for not making that clear when I wrote that post, especially since this thread is about 107 flights in controlled airspace.
Argus, first off, let me apologize for not clarifying. Your instructor is correct for a 107 operation. When I flew that mission, I was operating under a 333 exemption. As it stands today, 107 operators DO NOT have to provide notification while operating in Class G. When I filed a NOTAM, that was also a 333 exemption requirement. I will continue to provide a NOTAM no matter where I am operating because I have heard from several pilots that actually have looked them up and inquired about them. But that is my operating practice, no the FAA's. I think it is important to highlight that so that I am not speaking from a regulatory standpoint.
I will say, that in the above example, whether you are operating under 107 or 333, that a NOTAM is the best practice. When I saw the aircraft on final for the approach to the airfield, they were at or near my 400 foot ceiling in my vicinity, given that class E does not start until 700 feet, I could literally operate my sUAS on the active runway without violating a single regulation as long as I am seeing and avoiding any manned traffic. Given this example, I think one can clearly make a case for the philosophy that "more is better". Give a manned aircraft pilot the information. What he does with it is his/her business. I will note however, that this requirement DOES apply to those operating under the advisory circular as a recreational pilot.
Again, sorry for the confusion.
Thanks for all the information. I will make the NOTAM part of my practice as well. This instructor also told me that fixed wing aircraft are a concern, but not as much as helicopters, as they fly low alot. Here in coastal SC, they fly right down the beach at around 200' all the time, but at least you can hear them coming from far away.
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2015
- Messages
- 745
- Reaction score
- 234
- Location
- CASA GRANDE, AZ
- Website
- www.martinezaerial.com
NOTAMs are trouble-less via ENII. I always file NOTAMs whenever I am inside the 5 mile radius of uncontrolled airports and near heliports. Not necessary but I feel I've done my duty to exercise due care.
I went to 1800wxbrief.com and filed a UOA (UAS Operating Area) notice for a recreational flight. You can also file an additional NOTAM for a commercial flight with an additional registration and a few more clicks (they stress, a UOA is sufficient for a recreational flight, and add the NOTAM if you wish, but only for a commercial flight).
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2015
- Messages
- 745
- Reaction score
- 234
- Location
- CASA GRANDE, AZ
- Website
- www.martinezaerial.com
They are both good, keep in mind a NOTAM costs nothing to file via ENII and it not only appears in SkyVector charts but also in the FAA NOTAM Database, accessible to every pilot.
I like knowing I've done all I can to to serve notice I am flying my UAV in a specific are at a specific time at a specific altitude. Should some hotshot fixed wing or chopper pilot decides to come barreling through at my location and altitude and smacks my UAV I can hardly be labeled irresponsible in the ensuing investigation. In lieu of another " drone interferes with airplane story" maybe I get lucky and get a "pilot fails to conduct proper flight planning and strikes drone due to reckless aircraft operation. Drone pilot was in legal airspace and in full compliance with FAA regulations. " story.
Hey I can dream can I?
I like knowing I've done all I can to to serve notice I am flying my UAV in a specific are at a specific time at a specific altitude. Should some hotshot fixed wing or chopper pilot decides to come barreling through at my location and altitude and smacks my UAV I can hardly be labeled irresponsible in the ensuing investigation. In lieu of another " drone interferes with airplane story" maybe I get lucky and get a "pilot fails to conduct proper flight planning and strikes drone due to reckless aircraft operation. Drone pilot was in legal airspace and in full compliance with FAA regulations. " story.
Hey I can dream can I?
Last edited:
Lol. Always entertaining to"watch" someone arrogantly call someone else arrogant. But hey, that's the interwebs, right?
I ran face-first into this issue last week in class D airspace. I'm part 107 cert. What I experienced:
I filed for authorization through portal but since three was less than a week to the shoot date, I contacted the local FAA flight standards office, who in turn referred me to the portal as the ONLY means part 107 can receive airspace authorization.
I called the tower by phone and they confirmed the only way to receive authorization as part 107 was through online portal. Then this little caveat that has me steaming:
I was, at the same time, informed that non-certified hobbyists only (my emphasis) need call the tower, explain flight parameters, provide contact ph#, and immediately receive authorization or denial. No muss, no fuss.
So I called the tower back, notified them of my intentions, and received immediate authorization, with the request that I contact them by phone before and after my flights.
On another note: In all my research and real-time interaction with the FAA since seeking my part 107 license, a consistently reoccurring theme is that the FAA DOES NOT want drone operators on CTAF. I've no doubt they could care less if "real" licensed pilots chime in periodically if necessary *ahem* during their UAS operations, but it's been repeated they don't want UAS operators clogging the airwaves. And to a lesser degree, they do not want 107'ers filing NOTAMs for the same reason, unless stipulated in a COA or COW.
Rant details here:
USA - So. Couldn't use my Part WTF!?07 license the other day...
I ran face-first into this issue last week in class D airspace. I'm part 107 cert. What I experienced:
I filed for authorization through portal but since three was less than a week to the shoot date, I contacted the local FAA flight standards office, who in turn referred me to the portal as the ONLY means part 107 can receive airspace authorization.
I called the tower by phone and they confirmed the only way to receive authorization as part 107 was through online portal. Then this little caveat that has me steaming:
I was, at the same time, informed that non-certified hobbyists only (my emphasis) need call the tower, explain flight parameters, provide contact ph#, and immediately receive authorization or denial. No muss, no fuss.
So I called the tower back, notified them of my intentions, and received immediate authorization, with the request that I contact them by phone before and after my flights.
On another note: In all my research and real-time interaction with the FAA since seeking my part 107 license, a consistently reoccurring theme is that the FAA DOES NOT want drone operators on CTAF. I've no doubt they could care less if "real" licensed pilots chime in periodically if necessary *ahem* during their UAS operations, but it's been repeated they don't want UAS operators clogging the airwaves. And to a lesser degree, they do not want 107'ers filing NOTAMs for the same reason, unless stipulated in a COA or COW.
Rant details here:
USA - So. Couldn't use my Part WTF!?07 license the other day...
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2015
- Messages
- 745
- Reaction score
- 234
- Location
- CASA GRANDE, AZ
- Website
- www.martinezaerial.com
Have to agree with Bob on this. I blind call on CTAF anytime I'm launching inside 5 miles from any uncontrolled airport (I also file NOTAMS) if the traffic is light, not a problem. If it is a busy field (training hub) I may just skip it. But if I am anywhere close to the traffic pattern I will blind call on CTAF (don't really care if they like it) As a commercial pilot license holder I do know how to "operate a voice radio in any form." and if where I still actively flying; I would surely want that information.
"As a private pilot it's hard enough spotting a Cessna on final. Adding the workload of listening to UAS pilots and fixating on potential UAS conflicts makes flight more dangerous, not safer." Couldn't disagree more. If a pilot can't handle the traffic, s/he should stay on the ground and keep everyone else safe. I completed my commercial work in and around Honolulu International, one of the busiest. I was trained well.
ReadyKilowatt if you still want to learn how to do a blind call on CTAF, PM me. BTW, it helps if your UAVs are registered with real FAA number, N numbers. That is your call sign. All 3 of my birds have N numbers.
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2015
- Messages
- 745
- Reaction score
- 234
- Location
- CASA GRANDE, AZ
- Website
- www.martinezaerial.com
"I have met plenty of part 107 Pilots that have no biz on a CTAF and many manned aircraft pilots that concur. "
A false analogy, I have met many part 107 pilots whose judgment I would trust to fly me anywhere in the world and many manned aircraft pilots I would not let fly Snoopy's doghouse. Such statements are not very useful. A good pilot can distinguish between noise and useful information.
Similar threads
- Sticky
