107 air space waiver

[cdusher]

Don't know if, or how, the FAA will advise the airport of what's going on.
Our airport manager was happy I stopped by. He has no problem with the possible activity I described and asked to please keep him informed.
He said he has even signed a letter of authorization for a hobby pilot
I'll just see where the dust settles. If the airport has no problem why should the FAA worry about it.

 

[BigAl07]

NOT disagreeing here AT ALL, but where is that FAA instruction not to call. Do you have a link - I missed it even though I know you are right. I can't seem to find it but want to print it out for my "FAA Folder" - yeah, I am bit persnickety about keeping papers.

Keep in mind we are sort of in "Limbo" here because we have rules in place without the proper procedures in place to allow us to follow them. So as of right now the "Key" information is pertinent on or after October 3rd, 2016. I don't have a direct link in the Part 107 document to show where/how to get the authorization but I can tell you what's been stated and back it up with the FAA document to ATC.

Don't take my word for it look it up and read the whole document for yourself because at the end of the day it's your tail feather on the line regardless what I or anyone else on this forum tells you. I'm no attorney and if you take my advice and screw up I'm not the one coming to bail you out of jail LOL.

From the FAA document to ATC ( Effective Date 10/3/2016)
Air Traffic Organization Policy
Order JO 7200.23
SUBJ: Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)
Page #8 Section B
"1. General. In the event a Part 107 operator contacts an ATC facility directly for authorization, the facility must not issue authorization. The facility must direct the operator to the FAA UAS website, www.faa.gov/uas ."

Take note to the part stating "the facility must not issue authorization"

By the way, I just spoke with a tower person (at -unnamed- small airport) and she said, "We've heard about the new system but really think it is a better idea to call." Seems the water is a little muddy with some. It will work out - it has to.

That is a very troubling "mind set" especially coming from someone in this line of work. I can only say I hope this is only their mind set until October 3rd, 2016. After that time EVERYONE should be playing from the same rule book.

 

[BigAl07]

Don't know if, or how, the FAA will advise the airport of what's going on.
Our airport manager was happy I stopped by. He has no problem with the possible activity I described and asked to please keep him informed.
He said he has even signed a letter of authorization for a hobby pilot
I'll just see where the dust settles. If the airport has no problem why should the FAA worry about it.

Night and day difference between LOA for hobby flights and authorization for Part 107 operations. I sincerely hope more and more AT operations get the memo and adhere to it come October. The last thing we need/want is a patch work of rules & regulations from tower to tower. That's a disaster in the making.

 

[Phil Tuggle]

Page #8 Section B
"1. General. In the event a Part 107 operator contacts an ATC facility directly for authorization, the facility must not issue authorization. The facility must direct the operator to the FAA UAS website, www.faa.gov/uas ."

Take note to the part stating "the facility must not issue authorization"


That is a very troubling "mind set" especially coming from someone in this line of work. I can only say I hope this is only their mind set until October 3rd, 2016. After that time EVERYONE should be playing from the same rule book.

Thanks - THAT is what I was looking for.
I must say, I don't like it for small airports - even our local F16 Base - but it is what it is.

 

[cdusher]

I understand about requesting FAA authorization and have no problem with it.
Advising the airport manager would simply be a courtesy. I would not be asking his permission. Certainly not illegal.
My only point about him signing the hobbyist letter was simply his willingness to cooperate.
Your input is much appreciated. Not jumping into anything until the dust settles.
Thanks

 

[joet]

I think that it will take some time for the word from DC to filter down to everyone in every tower. Keep in mind that ATC is NOT fixated on UAS - they are fixated on manned aircraft, and UAS flight is not only a tiny fraction of their workday (and think about how much brainpower you devote in your own job to things you don't deal with 99.99% of the time), but there are multiple UAS rules (333, hobby, 107) that WE can't even keep straight a lot of the time. How is ATC supposed to keep it all straight, mere weeks after 107 went into effect?

If you doubt this, think of all the interactions we've seen with police who don't know the rules, regulations, and laws that apply in various jurisdictions to drones. They can quote you chapter and verse for public intoxication, but drones? "Hmm, didn't Sarge say that they were bad or something?" It's not (really) their fault, it's something that pretty much never comes up, and with rules, regulations, and laws changing often, well, they can't know everything about everything, and many times clarification is required.

Having a pilot fill out an airspace authorization request on a web page is so far out of the ATC's normal experience that they might as well have read about it in the National Enquirer.

So until the word trickles down, and a given airport that you've worked with has had enough time to learn and digest this, my recommendation would be to file on the web site and give the airport folks a courtesy call telling them that you did so. This way, they :

1. Learn the proper procedure
2. Know that you are following it
3. Still feel involved in it as they are likely to want to be. I can't imagine that they are thrilled to have a DC middleman here.
4. Don't have to feel compelled to grant authorization in violation of the directive that they have to follow (starting in October, anyway).

Reasonable?

 

[Great Pumpkin]

When flying in class C airspace, I always call the tower for authorizations. Talked to the tower supervisor and never had an issue. Most of the time, their thanking me for calling. Tell them when I would like to fly. They just ask to call back when I've completed the flight to close it out. Obviously it's different throughout the country.

My experience, too, although I'm flying as a hobbyist.

 

[QuadZmoto]

NOT disagreeing here AT ALL, but where is that FAA instruction not to call. Do you have a link - I missed it even though I know you are right. I can't seem to find it but want to print it out for my "FAA Folder" - yeah, I am bit persnickety about keeping papers. Right now, the ONLY place I can find this is on the FAA UAS "frequently asked questions page," and nowhere else - nothing to back it up that I can find: Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Frequently Asked Questions/Help .

By the way, I just spoke with a tower person (at -unnamed- small airport) and she said, "We've heard about the new system but really think it is a better idea to call." Seems the water is a little muddy with some. It will work out - it has to.

I agree with you. ATC no more knows what traffic conditions will be days or weeks from the request. I find nowhere the FAA says you can NOT contact the tower. In the original long text of the last meeting, FAA had suggested both methods. Long term flight operations makes sense to have a NOTAM. Short term1-2 hours of flying should be a spot notifications directly to ATC. I think the FAA has great intentions, just a little too caught up in making things complicated. Like you said: it'll all work out. We'll end up with two methods in the end.

 

[QuadZmoto]

My experience, too, although I'm flying as a hobbyist.

You did the right thing. When I spoke to the tower supervisor, she told me that a low flying Med-Evac spotted something is what she called it. Assuming it was a drone. We need to share the NAS and keep everyone safe. Hobbyist or commercial.

 

[Bob N]

One thing I noticed on the waiver site pertaining to airspace authorization once you check the box lat and long are required.
Apperently airspace authorization has to be site specific.
Could well mean multiple requests.

In my reading of the form instructions it looks like you don't need to pick the site specific lat/longs you can:

"Proposed Area of Operation: Provide a detailed description of the proposed geographic area of operations. Describe boundaries using street address, or easily identifiable landmarks. Include distance and direction from the nearest public airport. If the request is site-specific, provide the center point of proposed operation in the Latitude and Longitude blocks."

It will take some understanding in order to cover the whole city where I live so that I could fly commercial anywhere needed.

Also, the form can cover a time from up to 4 years! So it's not like you have to submit this for each job in a town.

 

[N42742]

I agree with you. ATC no more knows what traffic conditions will be days or weeks from the request. I find nowhere the FAA says you can NOT contact the tower.

BigAl gave you one quote. Look above. (Seems like we answer this question 10 times a day...)

Also, this is on faa.gov/uas/faqs

1. How do I request permission from Air Traffic Control to operate in Class B, C, D, or E airspace?
   You can request airspace authorization through an online web portal available at www.faa.gov/uas/request_waiver.
   
   
2. Can I contact my local air traffic control tower or facility directly to request airspace permission?
   No. All airspace permission requests must be made through the online portal.
   

 

[N42742]

And the next question we answer 10 times a day...

A waiver and an airspace authorization are different things.

 

[Richard R]

Paragraph 5.8 of FAA Advisory circular 107-2 specifically refers the PIC to the UAS webpage as the process for requesting authorization. I have another FAA reference tha specifically says not to contact ATC that I will post after I track it down again.

 

[Timtro]

Well just to confuse the issue I called the "contact us" number listed on the waiver site.
Actually had someone answer the phone (big surprise).
I explained to him what the situation is, remote pilots cert., class e to surface airspace, etc.
He put me on hold for several minutes while he presented the question to his supervisor.
He advised me that a letter from the airport would suffice.
I'm thinking they may be as confused at I am.
Really don't think I got the proper info.

Yes, I think you did get the wrong information. It's confusing that the same web page is used for the waiver requests and for airspace permission. Waiver of rules, understandably, can reasonably take 90 days to evaluate the safety aspects, but that is not the same for airspace permission. In certain cases airspace permission can be granted in 15 minutes for search and rescue, for example. The FAA, understandably, wants to limit the burden on the ATC. The reality is that we are constrained by weather and we can't predict weather 90 days out. Try filling out the airspace request when you need to schedule the job and see what happens. I would be interested in your report on an actual example.

 

[Bert OConnor]

I watched a video of Michael Huerta's keynote address at Interdrone and near the end of his spiel he mentioned things coming soon this December and beyond (to infinity and beyond!) that I assume (and one must never assume) will streamline more things. Right now this "portal" for waivers and authorizations is kludgey IMHO and their B4UFLY app is just as if not more kludgey. All of these "portals" and airspace authorizations and waivers needs to be in one big UPDATED B4UFLY app. Ya, it's better than it was, but it needs and hopefully will be streamlined and updated.

 

[Bert OConnor]

The next BIG thing I see coming up will be transponder requirement for new drones moving forward. Ya, I know, FAA and NASA are working on it as well as private manufacturers and clearly it will need to be small, lightweight. But in my opinion, somehow it could be software based (somehow) or at least cellular based for its small "footprint" and being lightweight, so local ATC can "see" who is out there, altitude, heading, speed, and obviously a "squawk" that indicates it's a drone and not a full sized plane. Ok, well, let the hounds of hell loose upon me for even bringing this up!

 

[Phil Tuggle]

The next BIG thing I see coming up will be transponder requirement for new drones moving forward. Ya, I know, FAA and NASA are working on it as well as private manufacturers and clearly it will need to be small, lightweight. But in my opinion, somehow it could be software based (somehow) or at least cellular based for its small "footprint" and being lightweight, so local ATC can "see" who is out there, altitude, heading, speed, and obviously a "squawk" that indicates it's a drone and not a full sized plane. Ok, well, let the hounds of hell loose upon me for even bringing this up!

I think (hope) it will be a while, but here is the lightest-weight one I can find - no clue of the cost, or if there are competitors.
XP Transponders

 

[Falcon900]

Just spoke with a gentleman at our airport and he pointed out that they really need to know as they have a lot of low flying aircraft that are not predictable in advance. Going to talk the the airport manager this afternoon.
Guessing even if you do need faa authorization one should also advise the airport due to current conditions.

What airport are you referring to? Is it in Class B,C,D or E airspace? What was this gentleman's position at the airport?

 

[Richard R]

The next BIG thing I see coming up will be transponder requirement for new drones moving forward. Ya, I know, FAA and NASA are working on it as well as private manufacturers and clearly it will need to be small, lightweight. But in my opinion, somehow it could be software based (somehow) or at least cellular based for its small "footprint" and being lightweight, so local ATC can "see" who is out there, altitude, heading, speed, and obviously a "squawk" that indicates it's a drone and not a full sized plane. Ok, well, let the hounds of hell loose upon me for even bringing this up!

If you read the actual comments to the FAA (all 695 pages) several entities actually suggested reguiring transponders. The FAA rejected it as impractical and of little additional safety value. They actually came down on our side on this and several other key issues such as radios.

 

[BigAl07]

Just to add more salt to the wound LOL

All ATC will be briefed over the next couple of weeks about this new procedure and I am pretty sure those of us who are lucky enough to have "call in" approval will see that go by the side. I was in a conference call last night and was told something and then I saw it today from my FAA representative in writing:

"Generally speaking, if a controller goes against FAA policy (authorization outside of the FAA portal) they leave themselves personally responsible for any accidents or incidents. This is no different for Aviation Safety Inspectors.

Directly contacting the ATC facility is not the approved process for requesting ATC authorization."

So if you're making the phone call now that's good but don't base your business plan around it happening much longer. I doubt any controllers are going to risk their own liability once October 3rd rolls around.

Also he stated this:
"Not that this makes anything better for the short term, the goal is to make ATC authorization for missions like this to be near-instant. There is A LOT of work going into 'airport grid mapping' which will help this goal be a reality."

then:

"To give you an idea of what we're striving for, our goal is that you can be standing somewhere, pull out your cell phone, submit your ATC authorization request with your GPS coordinates. Those coordinates will be matched against the 'airport grid' and if they are located in a 'pre-approved' area, you will receive an email back with your clearance.

Again, the goal is for it to happen as fast as you read that."

The FAA really want to make this work for us as much as we want it to work. There are going to be mistakes and growing pains but at least they are working with us and together I think it's going to be much better in the near future.