Flying within 5 miles of an airport

[Sinisalo]

Did you follow the ground station link?
Did you click Licensing on the page?
Did you read the information on this page?
Did you click the Applying for a New License on that page?
Or did you try clicking on the Universal Licensing System (ULS) link on that page?

Can you find it now?

Yes I did, now when the options for licenses come up it does not say anything about Aeronautical Multicom Stations.

Glad this was brought up .... I just remembered my radio was in my Sprinter.... just now brought it in... don't need it to freeze...

notice the wording... " under the terms of your aircraft license " "Wherever aviation services are provided "

So... a commercial airline has different terms and different aircraft license than say a powered parachute aircraft...
if your using a private grass airstrip... just how much aviation services provided do you think is there... maybe you can radio the wife so she can open the door for you to taxi your aircraft into the hanger....

and depending on your " aircraft " you don't have to have any license at all... not even a drivers license... sorry

The only thing that made sense was to have an FCC and FAA approved radio. So why is everyone acting like this is such a big deal to want to talk to the tower, of course I can study and watch videos first so I don't waste their time but sheesh.

 

[Sinisalo]

I do not believe you would need a multicom license. You are not transmitting from your drone to the ground on any airband frequencies. You are looking to be on the ground and transmit to the ATC/Tower. Thats a completely different scenario.

Well these are the options, I guess I will have to call the FCC:

 

[Wolfiesden]

Glad this was brought up .... I just remembered my radio was in my Sprinter.... just now brought it in... don't need it to freeze...

notice the wording... " under the terms of your aircraft license " "Wherever aviation services are provided "

So... a commercial airline has different terms and different aircraft license than say a powered parachute aircraft...
if your using a private grass airstrip... just how much aviation services provided do you think is there... maybe you can radio the wife so she can open the door for you to taxi your aircraft into the hanger....

and depending on your " aircraft " you don't have to have any license at all... not even a drivers license... sorry

So much bold.

The website is talking about the RADIO licensee for the aircraft not the registration or N number nor is it talking about a pilot license.

I don't have or operate one but I believe that even though you could fly an ultrilight without a pilot license, you would still need a radio license if you operated a VHF on the airband. But that part may be a bit fuzzy. As I said, I have never looked into ultralights.

Yes I did, now when the options for licenses come up it does not say anything about Aeronautical Multicom Stations.


The only thing that made sense was to have an FCC and FAA approved radio. So why is everyone acting like this is such a big deal to want to talk to the tower, of course I can study and watch videos first so I don't waste their time but sheesh.

The FAA must approve all equipment for aircraft. That includes (but isn't limited) to all the instrumentation, communication and electrical gear.

Generally the FCC must license all transmission equipment in the US except for certain public/free stuff. If you look, I can almost guarantee there is an FCC ID on the back of your P3's controller. The controller is an RF emission device and therefore must have a license and be approved by the FCC. Thats what the ID is about. That ID and license permits you to operate it (unmodified I might add).

Just because the FAA and the FCC may have approved the HARDWARE of a VHF radio, that does not mean they approved the operator of it (you). It simply means the radio operates within the rules it was designed to do and that it doesn't interfere with any other system on the aircraft.

Most consumer devices don't require you to be licensed. That doesn't hold true for an aviation VHF transceiver though. Think about it like this... Go buy a HAM radio. Its going to have an FCC approval ID. Does that mean you can just start claling your Aunt Sally with it? No. You are required to obtain a license to operate that approved radio. That make sense?

 

[Wolfiesden]

FCC: Wireless Services: Ground Stations: Services: About
That has a description of the various services.

 

[Sinisalo]

So much bold.

The website is talking about the RADIO licensee for the aircraft not the registration or N number nor is it talking about a pilot license.

I don't have or operate one but I believe that even though you could fly an ultrilight without a pilot license, you would still need a radio license if you operated a VHF on the airband. But that part may be a bit fuzzy. As I said, I have never looked into ultralights.



The FAA must approve all equipment for aircraft. That includes (but isn't limited) to all the instrumentation, communication and electrical gear.

Generally the FCC must license all transmission equipment in the US except for certain public/free stuff. If you look, I can almost guarantee there is an FCC ID on the back of your P3's controller. The controller is an RF emission device and therefore must have a license and be approved by the FCC. Thats what the ID is about. That ID and license permits you to operate it (unmodified I might add).

Just because the FAA and the FCC may have approved the HARDWARE of a VHF radio, that does not mean they approved the operator of it (you). It simply means the radio operates within the rules it was designed to do and that it doesn't interfere with any other system on the aircraft.

Most consumer devices don't require you to be licensed. That doesn't hold true for an aviation VHF transceiver though. Think about it like this... Go buy a HAM radio. Its going to have an FCC approval ID. Does that mean you can just start claling your Aunt Sally with it? No. You are required to obtain a license to operate that approved radio. That make sense?

Most of these old school FPV setups technically require a HAM license too but I seriously doubt many are actually in compliance

 

[Wolfiesden]

Most of these old school FPV setups technically require a HAM license too but I seriously doubt many are actually in compliance

Maybe, don't know about them nor have I looked at them. However one important thing here is, that FPV system is not talking to a government employee paid to pay attention to commercial manned aircraft and the safety thereof. It may be frowned upon to poke your brother with a stick, but if you poke a cop with a stick, assume you would agree the outcome will be entirely different no?

 

[Ralph M]

This has been an interesting discussion thread. I'm going to add my two cents worth.

As someone who used to have a private pilots license, I have a lot of respect for the process and responsibilities associated with piloting a plane.

While our drones may be small, they are still capable of entering the national airspace and interacting with manned aircraft. The potential for fatal outcomes associated with this interaction is real and serious.

I am totally OK and in compliance with the new FAA rules for the recreational use of my drones. I believe any responsible adult should be too.

All in all, I think the FAA has done a good job of limiting the brain damage associated with this process. Its registration site works smoothly and is easy to complete. Quite frankly, I get tired of hearing old ideological arguments about government incompetence being used to avoid compliance. They aren't relevant here.

We should be constructively encouraging the FAA to move towards an automated notification system that works as well as its registration process. This really isn't as hard to do as some here might think. It may be just an extension of the existing system that is used to file flight plans. Again, for those who insist the government cannot do anything right, I would suggest that the FAA's flightplan system is an elegant and efficient retort.

Thanks for listening…


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[Wolfiesden]

I mean, I get what you are trying to do here. You want to pick up a radio and say "Hey, tower, I am flying my drone here at X, Y, Z." I get that.

But are you sure you want to interact with a tower that way? Are you sure they want you to do that? Why not just pick up the phone and call them before you go through all that licensing crap, and see what the tower wants you to do? Maybe he only wants you to shoot him an email that morning. You could ask them if they wanted you to or if you could radio them. They will tell you what you need to know and whether they wish you to contact them in that way. They may. They may not. I suspect the latter is going to be the case. They may not want a couple dozen drone pilots calling them when they might be busy focusing on a Cessna doing touch and go's. The simple question asked politely to the right guy at the tower will get you your answer pretty quickly.

 

[Wolfiesden]

While our drones may be small, they are still capable of entering the national airspace and interacting with manned aircraft. The potential for fatal outcomes associated with this interaction is real and serious.

I get where you are aiming at there too. However, lets replace a few things in that and see if it still holds water...

While our RC cars may be small, they are still capable of entering the national road system and interacting with manned cars. The potential for fatal outcomes associated with this interaction is real and serious.

Does it still hold water for you? Do you advocate that everyone who owns an RC car should be forced to register with the DMV simply because the RC car COULD possibly enter a roadway?

Honestly, most of us do not intend on operating our drones anywhere near manned aircraft nor to most owners of RC cars plan to run them down main street or out on the freeway. Honestly I think we need to take a deep breath here and recognize what is really going on here with the FAA requirement. Whether you agree with me or not, it certainly looks like the first steps to regulation, licensing and possibly governmental control of our devices.

And like it or not, we recently found out about NFZ backdoors the hard way. Was that something DJI did on its own or is there something going on behind closed doors at the government level here telling DJI and other companies what they must do? Honestly we have no idea which one it was/is. And its a scary path the industry is on right now.

 

[Ralph M]

Wolfiesden - I guess the difference between the two of us is that I've actually had the responsibility of piloting an aircraft with passengers in it. And in my mind, the comparison you make is absolutely absurd. A model car simply is crushed on a public street. An unmanned drone has the ability at very least to cause evasive action, and at worse cause a fatal crash. It's sad that you don't understand that difference.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[N017RW]

Never understood the drone/car comparison(s) on any level or context.

Seems very short sided as the differences stack-up pretty quick.

 

[Wolfiesden]

Wolfiesden - I guess the difference between the two of us is that I've actually had the responsibility of piloting an aircraft with passengers in it. And in my mind, the comparison you make is absolutely absurd. A model car simply is crushed on a public street. An unmanned drone has the ability at very least to cause evasive action, and at worse cause a fatal crash. It's sad that you don't understand that difference.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app

You are incorrect. I do understand that. I really do. And I almost had my PL (changed jobs and didn't have time/money to complete, had done my cross country and was up for final eval and final hours). So while I have not had the pleasure you have of flying with passengers, I have flown (single engine Cessnas) so I get that point of view too.

Something runs or crawls or walks or rolls out in the road, whats your reaction going to be? Crush it or an instinctive reaction to avoid it or stop before hitting it? Most people will try to stop or avoid it, thereby creating a dangerous situation. Your comment on a car just crushing the RC car holds water with a drone too. About all a pilot would hear is a "Dink" and probably assume it was a bird strike. Most props would chew it into nothing (most likely nicking the prop in the process). About the only issue might be a windshield strike, or possible a wing strut. It, of course depends on the weight and mass of the drone too. I am not sayin it can't or won't cause damage either. It most certainly could.

Also to keep in mind, unless you are flying the slowest plane on the planet, its unlikely the pilot will ever see the drone let alone far enough ahead to even remotely react before he hits it. Certainly not at 100kts or more (the cruise speed of a docile Cessna 152). Thats roughly 120mph. You honestly think at 120mph that someone who isn't actively searching for a drone would stand a chance of seeing it. A plane traveling at that speed is cooking along at 176 feet per second. Give you a 3 second reaction time and you would have to identify, correctly assess and begin a corrective maneuver while the drone was at least 528 feet in front of you. I really don't think that anyone not actively looking out the windshield of their aircraft specifically looking for a tiny hovering object >500' in front of them would stand the remotest chance in hell of spotting it. Extend that to something like a turboprop at 500kt and that 3 seconds becomes (845f/s) >2500ft. The plot would have to spot the drone about a 1/2mi away and at that distance its a mere speck if that.


And I certainly do NOT advocate flying a drone into an area where commercial aircraft could or would fly SPECIFICALLY for the reasons I outlined above (a pilot has no chance in hell of seeing it). I do not advocate flying above 400'. I do not advocate flying in glide paths. I do not advocate flying your drone anywhere that would jeopardize life or property.

 

[Wolfiesden]

Never understood the drone/car comparison(s) on any level or context.

Seems very short sided as the differences stack-up pretty quick.

While the analogy is not perfect (and few are), its something most people can wrap their brain around. That and that I wager that most people under 30 probably had at least one RC car in their lives.

 

[Ralph M]

Wolfiesden - Sorry, but it takes just a few seconds on YouTube to pull up hundreds, maybe thousands of videos of "recreational" drone flights conducted far, far above 400 feet. I can't even count the number of videos I've seen where the operator took a drone to well over a 1000 feet into airspace that is commonly used by manned aircraft. So the argument that the opportunity for drones and other aircraft to interact is rare holds absolutely no sway with me.

Similarly, your claim that the interaction wouldn't damage a plane is mind-blowing to me. For roughly 100 years the bias in civil (and for that matter, military) aviation has been to err hugely on the side of safety. Unlike a car, any kind of crash between two airborne craft can easy send the pilot and passengers to their deaths. Consequently, there are strict rules - some extreme - for operating and maintaining crewed aircraft. The fact that you got so far along in the pilot license process and never learned or understood this bias is unnerving to me.

 

[N017RW]

Can't compare a real situation to a (supposedly) equal hypothetical situation.

Put 1M r/c cars on the public roadway then we can compare statistics, govt. reaction/laws/restrictions/etc. to the 1M drones in NAS.

The handwaving of aircraft damage from collision with a Phantom is ponderous.

 

[Wolfiesden]

And I argue those same videos should be evidence for prosecution. Those drone operators were being irresponsible. I agree with you on that 100%.

And I never said it was rare. What I said was that it was unlikely that the pilot would see and then try to avoid and thus cause a crash. Could it cause a crash? Absolutely. But not likely due to the pilot performing a maneuver to avoid the drone. Perhaps on takeoff or landing where his close proximity to the ground and slower air speed might contribute to that. But again, drones should not be anywhere near a glide path. E.V.E.R.

You asserted in your reply that "An unmanned drone has the ability at very least to cause evasive action" and that the pilot would try to avoid the drone thereby possibly causing a crash. Thats the situation I was responding to sir. And thats the analogy I made with the car/RC that the driver would try to avoid it and thereby cause a crash. Not the fact the drone wouldn't likely cause damage to a car, unless it hit the windshield then the driver might not be able to see.

Drones don't belong up there in NAS. Fully on board with that.

While I don't completely disagree with you, I don't fully agree either. So I think I will leave it at that.

 

[GoodnNuff]

I would love it if everyone would link their supporting facts as I have, I am just trying to educate myself on the topic not pick a fight with anyone.

Actually, so would I.

 

[RocketBrew]

Seems to me the issue isn't whether a sUAV should or could go above 400', the point of the FAA regs seem to be proper notification WHEN you are going above 400'.
I am planning to fly at my rocketry club launch this weekend, and we have an FAA waiver for that time and space to launch rockets up to 6,500 feet AGL. So during that period of time I can take my Phantom up to 6,500' and be in compliance. (With less than a dozen flights under my belt so far I won't be testing that theory, however...)

 

[ScatSpeak]

So during that period of time I can take my Phantom up to 6,500' and be in compliance.

Actually the firmware would stop you at 1,600'... but still, even at that you could get some cool rocket videos from that altitude maybe?......

 

[impilot51]

Guys,

Commercial instrument rated pilot here, as well as certified flight instructor aircraft and instrument. Plain and simple, you will not be granted a license to transmit on the frequencies in question without a pilots license. You can try, but it won't happen. A multicom ground station and a Unicom station fulfill specific communication needs within the NAS, and you are neither of them.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app