Commercial Drone Pilot Required To Have Radio

Joined
Jul 23, 2016
Messages
68
Reaction score
10
Hey all,

Studying up on my part 107 pilot license and came across this in the FAA study guide, Page 42:

"For safety reasons, a remote pilot must always scan the area where they are operating a small UA. This is especially important around an airport. While it is good operating procedures for manned aircraft to make radio broadcasts in the vicinity of a non-towered airport, by regulation, it is not mandatory. For this reason, a remote pilot must always look for other aircraft in the area, and use a radio for an extra layer of situational awareness. "

That sounds like we must use a radio when operating around an airport that does not have an ATC.

Study guide: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_pol...s/aviation/media/remote_pilot_study_guide.pdf

Also, I am shocked that manned pilots don't have to even broadcast their vicinity around non-towered airports.

Am I reading this wrong??

Thanks
 
Last edited:
I have one and always keep it tuned to the local airport's tower or CTAF. But I never broadcast on it, it's just so I can monitor air traffic in the pattern. You should always be able to move your drone out of the way of manned aircraft, so what would be the point in transmitting?


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ansia
Its SOP to announce when you are approaching the pattern and as you progress around in preparation for landing, but as you noted, not required. I have a Bearcat scanner (not an endorsement ) that scans between the Unicom and CTAF frequencies, but that doesn't replace the need for sharp eyes and ears. And while most pattern altitudes are around 1000 ft AGL, you never know when someone might show up lower, especially on takeoff or landing approach. Just like Ken mentioned, we are the ones who have to get out of everyone else way, so being distracted by fiddling with a radio when we already have both hands, eyes and ears busy just isn't a safe idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Falcon900
I personally don't understand why anyone would want or need to be operating within the airport traffic patterns. Being a licensed Private Pilot who utilizes unmanned airports from time to time, I'd be a wee bit upset if I were entering a landing pattern and heard someone on the radio announcing his UA was in the pattern too. First off, an UA would be virtually impossible to see from a cockpit window, my plane is much faster than a Drone which might be difficult for the UA pilot to notice that an aircraft would be closing in much faster than expected. I can see many reasons to avoid airport flying altogether. Just can't see a reason to fly any UA within an airport traffic range.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots
 
  • Like
Reactions: trcsmith
Simply refer to your radio usage and communication protocol training and testing for Part 107 Operators.

What!?! There was none?

There's your answer.

Monitor yes, anyone can do that now, Tx not without an FCC license or Station ID.
 
A couple of things:

1) Instrument pilots of manned aircraft sometimes use what's known as a "circling approach" to an airport. In those cases the manned craft will not approach from the usual and customary locations. The first approach will be 90 degrees from the end of a runway and they will actually fly over the field perpendicular to the runway right in the middle of the runway. Since IFR approaches are often practiced in clear VFR type weather the probability of a collision is actually higher during those times because after all we as responsible UAV pilots should only be flying in VFR conditions, right?

The IFR pilot is looking at his/her instruments at that time and by design doing little scanning of his/her surroundings. They rely heavily on other resources to successful and safely navigate to the ground. They will probably never know what hit them.

Pilots are taught to announce their intentions by "broadcasting into the blind" at uncontrolled airfields. I've been a pilot more than 33 years and surprised to hear that it's not a requirement. Regardless, I'll continue the practice.

2) I don't recall the exact language but I do recall something in the regs about the illegality of using a portable VHF radio to broadcast from the ground. I submit it's a good idea to listen but please check on that detail before broadcasting.

3) One of the reasons for having the basic info that a private pilot has in reading the sectionals is so that we can interpret most of that information and stay clear of air traffic and restricted airspace. Unfortunately IFR approach information is not on the VFR sectionals. IFR sectionals are separate.

I'm convinced if there are enough of us doing the right thing and calling out those that infringe on all of our safety and freedom we will continue to enjoy our mutual hobby/profession. It does us all justice to keep each other informed. We need to police ourselves to minimize the need for others to do it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brolland
Part 107 pilots are not doing this for fun, and unless they're working for the airport authority I cannot envision seeing them flying touch and go-s in and around the airfield, but how about a survey of a property two blocks away but under a typical traffic pattern?

IMHO, Operating under Part 107 COA for a controlled airspace it really makes sense for the RPIC or crew to be -scanning/monitoring- Tower and CTAF frequencies. I would think it should be a requirement for the airspace COA. Just by monitoring it could help establish a "sterile cockpit" for the RPIC and crew, and enhance their situational awareness. Hey, I (the RPIC) just heard a take off clearance nearby, that plane is going to be flying close by real soon, time for me to land, NOW.

Also, by being seen monitoring, the RPIC and crew look a lot more professional to others who may otherwise assume that they may willy nillly endangering airport operations with their latest X-mas toy. Pilots, doctors, policeman, mail carriers, and even, me, a land surveyor (wearing a vest) use tools like uniforms and tools, which are visual cues to the public about who we are, which can allay a lot of fears and concerns. Also, it's a great excuse for not wanting to engage in distracting conversations with curious spectators, ".....sorry sir/madam, but I have to monitor this radio, I'll be happy to tell you all about it when we Land, thank you, etc... "

Transmitting, if it's illegal, it's illegal. So was commercial sUAS operations six months ago. So should it remain illegal? -As long as the frequency is not in use,- I don't see how a simple self announce, e.g. " ...Erie traffic, small drone eleven miles to Northeast taking off for eight hundred feet, any traffic or ATC please advise we will land..." would hurt. Now say I'm a heli pilot and heard that, and I'm heading into that area, I can call the RPIC directly on CTAF, or on tower have ATC contact the RPIC, and he can land before we could ever be an issue.

On the hobby side, my and most RC clubs usually have an airband radio turned on over a PA system at the club's operating field.

Sent from my SHIELD Tablet K1 using PhantomPilots mobile app
 
This Part 107 video shows the FAA guy recommending a two-way radio at 44:40 into it:
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

I think all I had to do was get a radiotelephone license (Just a mail in form then.) from the FCC years ago for the airplane during my student pilot days. A VHF radio station was the plane's FAA registration number if I recall and that was about it. Too long ago and may have changed. We also had them in the Civil Air Patrol and the cadets used them at times for training, but that is some Air Force collaboration so who knows.
 
Part 107 pilots are not doing this for fun, and unless they're working for the airport authority I cannot envision seeing them flying touch and go-s in and around the airfield, but how about a survey of a property two blocks away but under a typical traffic pattern?

IMHO, Operating under Part 107 COA for a controlled airspace it really makes sense for the RPIC or crew to be -scanning/monitoring- Tower and CTAF frequencies. I would think it should be a requirement for the airspace COA. Just by monitoring it could help establish a "sterile cockpit" for the RPIC and crew, and enhance their situational awareness. Hey, I (the RPIC) just heard a take off clearance nearby, that plane is going to be flying close by real soon, time for me to land, NOW.

Also, by being seen monitoring, the RPIC and crew look a lot more professional to others who may otherwise assume that they may willy nillly endangering airport operations with their latest X-mas toy. Pilots, doctors, policeman, mail carriers, and even, me, a land surveyor (wearing a vest) use tools like uniforms and tools, which are visual cues to the public about who we are, which can allay a lot of fears and concerns. Also, it's a great excuse for not wanting to engage in distracting conversations with curious spectators, ".....sorry sir/madam, but I have to monitor this radio, I'll be happy to tell you all about it when we Land, thank you, etc... "

Transmitting, if it's illegal, it's illegal. So was commercial sUAS operations six months ago. So should it remain illegal? -As long as the frequency is not in use,- I don't see how a simple self announce, e.g. " ...Erie traffic, small drone eleven miles to Northeast taking off for eight hundred feet, any traffic or ATC please advise we will land..." would hurt. Now say I'm a heli pilot and heard that, and I'm heading into that area, I can call the RPIC directly on CTAF, or on tower have ATC contact the RPIC, and he can land before we could ever be an issue.

On the hobby side, my and most RC clubs usually have an airband radio turned on over a PA system at the club's operating field.

Sent from my SHIELD Tablet K1 using PhantomPilots mobile app
Actually, commercial sUAS operations weren't illegal 6 months ago. They just, and still do, required the appropriate paperwork (333 then, Part 107 now).
Although I included a receiving radio in my authorization request, the final approval didn't require it. I just had to have my cell phone available so that approach control could contact me via it if they needed me to 'get out of the way'. One of the problems is that VHF radios are line-of-sight and even a couple of miles from the airport you may not be able to reach or hear the tower.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Falcon900
tl;dr - don't kill people because you're ignorant or selfish.

I know 95% of people reading this thread get it, but for those that don't - you could potentially KILL a pilot with your drone...

if you are flying a UAS, you should be aware of your (the UAS') surroundings and watching for planes at all times. Keep VLOS on your aircraft, AT ALL TIMES, so you can safely bring it out of the way of manned aircraft. Don't wait for a call to come on the radio, or your cell phone, politely asking you to move your UAS. GET OUT OF THE WAY. Period. A radio/scanner is a tool to know if a plane is entering a near by traffic pattern before you can see or hear it, so you can get out of the way EARLY. While yes, you shouldn't be IN the traffic pattern, if you are by a very small quiet airport then you might still be in the way...

These people who want to fly their UAS 5 miles away, I don't get it. Your camera faces one way, ONLY one way, how will you know if a plane is approaching from one of the other 3 directions if you can't SEE your **** UAS?? Stupid. Beautiful shots can be obtained, I get it, but at what expense? Endangering pilots in the air or possibly losing your UAS... Stay in VLOS even when not flying under part 107. Stay under 400' or within 400' of s structure as you are less likely to run into unexpected manned aircraft; keep your UAS and other aircraft safe!

This is supposed to be fun hobby / business, stop making it more stressful than it needs to be by endangering yourself and others.
/rantover.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Falcon900
333 exemptions required a certificated pilot (my part 61 cost me over $6000 fifteen years ago) and quite a bit of paperwork, maybe consultants, etc. It was a BIG ask, so not an inconsequential barrier to entry, but granted still legal.

My example is from an actual COA I flew for a couple photogrammetry missions. In my application I also told them I would be monitoring with a handheld airband radio (an old Delcom HT.). Here's the interesting part they indicated on the COA that they would be contact me at the telephone number of the "responsible person" (my boss' office phone number) listed on the application instead of the telephone number of the RPIC (my cell phone number.). Even if they did the RPIC number given to them, talk about a distraction. Say that you're flying, now you get an inbound cellphone call (from a number you probably don't have in your address book,) do you pick up that call while you're flying?

Yes, a hand held radio's effective range diminishes in direct proportion as you get further away from a tower or airborne aircraft, but then the same it could be said for the collision threat. At the same time the risk of radio interference is reduced in the indirectly the farther apart. The closer we get, the more we need to know about each other, and vice versa.

We're talking about an additional $100-250.00 equipment burden. Yes, it is not a See and Avoid silver bullet, and won't bring us world peace, but for the cost, (a lot less then any transponder) it seems like a lot of potential benefits (see my previous post) for the buck.

Again, I am talking about professional/commercial operations here. We've got our big boy pants on here, i.e. we're not talking about kite flying in the park with a grandkid. Think the professional carpenter doesn't sweat buying the Milwaukee/DeWalt over the Skill/Black and Decker saw or drill at Lowe's.

Apologies to the board, I'm home convalescing from a recent surgery, I'll get off this sudsy soap box now. [emoji58]




Sent from my SHIELD Tablet K1 using PhantomPilots mobile app
 
this in the FAA study guide, Page 42

Can you give us the source of this study guide? I'm not seeing an FAA one with this in it, but do see a couple of non-FAA guides that say it.

Also, I am shocked that manned pilots don't have to even broadcast their vicinity around non-towered airports.

Let me shock you a tad further: It's not a requirement to have your plane equipped with a radio, much less use it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Falcon900
PS - you can buy a. VHF scanner for a lot less than a VHF Air band radio. I bought my scanner on Amazon for about $50, my radio was $400.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots
 
I stopped into an avionics shop yesterday to talk with them about the handheld two-way VHF aircraft radios. The owner said they only are good for maybe a few blocks on the ground to the tower due to obstructions. On a field there's no problem. If you put an antenna on your car to act as a ground plane you could get 3-4 mile ground to tower off it. In the air they will go for miles and you can hear planes, but hearing the tower is another matter.

He said he has a portable at home with one of the extendable antennas and he lives at the 5 mile limit but cannot hear the tower at all with it. He'd have to roof mount it, or go with a antenna along with a ground plane off the car or truck and tune it. He favors getting one with a BNC or SM connection so you could use an external antenna. Lacking all that, use a cell phone if the tower will answer as they usually have a headset on. He said he sometimes calls the nearby tower on the phone for radio checks and info but they don't answer which he finds annoying being in the business - and they always have some excuse if cornered.
 
This Part 107 video shows the FAA guy recommending a two-way radio at 44:40 into it:
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

I think all I had to do was get a radiotelephone license (Just a mail in form then.) from the FCC years ago for the airplane during my student pilot days. A VHF radio station was the plane's FAA registration number if I recall and that was about it. Too long ago and may have changed. We also had them in the Civil Air Patrol and the cadets used them at times for training, but that is some Air Force collaboration so who knows.

Great link, why aren't awesome talks like this direct from FAA personnel more widely available?? This should be a sticky in a 107 thread. Sooo much interpretation, gray area and misinformation with FAA 107. Thanks for sharing!
 
Oh, BTW I did shoot an email to the FAA about study guide part saying that you must have a radio and they agreed and will change the verbiage in the next revision.
 
I personally don't understand why anyone would want or need to be operating within the airport traffic patterns. Being a licensed Private Pilot who utilizes unmanned airports from time to time, I'd be a wee bit upset if I were entering a landing pattern and heard someone on the radio announcing his UA was in the pattern too. First off, an UA would be virtually impossible to see from a cockpit window, my plane is much faster than a Drone which might be difficult for the UA pilot to notice that an aircraft would be closing in much faster than expected. I can see many reasons to avoid airport flying altogether. Just can't see a reason to fly any UA within an airport traffic range.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots


I asked for an airspace waiver to operate at an airport. I have legitimate reasons.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,358
Members
104,935
Latest member
Pauos31