Following the rules

[ravedog]

At my age all my friends are old.

At my age all my old friends are new. Lol

 

[Crack The Sky]

I'm glad I passed my first exam on reading charts. I am aware of top 3 rules (400' or less, VLOS, and 5 mile from airports) but have not gotten into the community stuff. Unlike model airplanes, we don't make noise or need a runway so any alliance with the AMA folks would need a paradigm shift among it's more seasoned leadership who probably don't appreciate UAVs (IMHO). I personally favor the AOPA more. Since DRM is uncontrolled I'm not sure who I would contact. Do they still have UNICOM 122.8? I don't think my boat VHF operates on that frequency. Maybe the FBO (probably only one).

Unfortunately, the biggest obstacle to my flying is with VLOS as most all of my flights are Litchi missions that are less than 250', 2-3 miles in length and almost always over un-populated wilderness/water in central (Great Lakes area) Ontario, Canada. If it ever did crash my first place to look would be on Amazon. From what I have read. the Canadian rules don't differ much from ours Flying your drone safely and legally - Transport Canada

This was an interesting post on the link you just sent. FAA begins drone map release - AOPA I wonder how long that would take to make it to Drummond Island International.

FYI, I have a P3P.

AOPA just started a sUAS division. And AirMap is supposed to have all the phone number listed to assist you in contacting Towers/Airport Operators. I believe the FAA frowns upon radio contact originating from an sUAS pilot. OK to monitor, but they don't want to hear you on the airwaves. Phone contact, prior to the flight is what they are looking for.
Drones - AOPA
Drone notification made easy - AOPA

 

[RW-1]

AOPA just started a sUAS division. And AirMap is supposed to have all the phone number listed to assist you in contacting Towers/Airport Operators. I believe the FAA frowns upon radio contact originating from an sUAS pilot. OK to monitor, but they don't want to hear you on the airwaves. Phone contact, prior to the flight is what they are looking for.
Drones - AOPA
Drone notification made easy - AOPA

True, because most of those remote pilots will not be familiar with phraseology needed, plus depending on location, the controllers are already overworked (hehehe), so they don't need to be speaking to additional newbs on the radio.

 

[Crack The Sky]

True, because most of those remote pilots will not be familiar with phraseology needed, plus depending on location, the controllers are already overworked (hehehe), so they don't need to be speaking to additional newbs on the radio.

You are correct on both counts. But interestingly, those are not the compelling reasons for the policy. The FCC requires a "Restricted Radio Telephone Operators" license to transmit on the Aviation wavelengths when you are OUTSIDE of an aircraft. The license is not required to transmit from INSIDE an aircraft, ( it used to be). So, purchasing an aviation band transceiver and transmitting on it from the ground is breaking FCC rules, not FAA. You can monitor all you want, for safety. I have spoken to the FCC at great length and the only licenses they will issue are to, for example, balloon chase ground crews, FBO's that have Unicom, and aviation company maintenance & weather personnel that have a need to speak to aircrews in flight. They are adamant about this, (at least the two FCC personnel I spoke with). This is another touchy area that is going to have to be rethought as time goes on.
Relaxing that ruling would require sUAS folks to have a thorough understanding of FAA & FCC communication procedures and probably a certification test to prove it, prior to the issue of an FCC license.

 

[RW-1]

You are correct on both counts. But interestingly, those are not the compelling reasons for the policy. The FCC requires a "Restricted Radio Telephone Operators" license to transmit on the Aviation wavelengths when you are OUTSIDE of an aircraft. The license is not required to transmit from INSIDE an aircraft, ( it used to be). So, purchasing an aviation band transceiver and transmitting on it from the ground is breaking FCC rules, not FAA. You can monitor all you want, for safety. I have spoken to the FCC at great length and the only licenses they will issue are to, for example, balloon chase ground crews, FBO's that have Unicom, and aviation company maintenance & weather personnel that have a need to speak to aircrews in flight. They are adamant about this, (at least the two FCC personnel I spoke with). This is another touchy area that is going to have to be rethought as time goes on.
Relaxing that ruling would require sUAS folks to have a thorough understanding of FAA & FCC communication procedures and probably a certification test to prove it, prior to the issue of an FCC license.

"The license is not required to transmit from INSIDE an aircraft, ( it used to be). "

I knew I had a reason to keep that RRTO cert ... Though I have to go dig it out of the file, if it has an expiration.

 

[Crack The Sky]

"The license is not required to transmit from INSIDE an aircraft, ( it used to be). "

I knew I had a reason to keep that RRTO cert ... Though I have to go dig it out of the file, if it has an expiration.

I just went through that; looking for mine. I found it and they do not have an expiration date. With it in hand, I asked the FCC if I could use my long ago issued RRTO to satisfy the FCC requirement to have a RRTO to transmit from the ground. The answer was a FLAT NO. When I pressed the reasoning behind that, I was told, "I am not going to debate you on this." End of story.

 

[Mainshipper]

I just went through that; looking for mine. I found it and they do not have an expiration date. With it in hand, I asked the FCC if I could use my long ago issued RRTO to satisfy the FCC requirement to have a RRTO to transmit from the ground. The answer was a FLAT NO. When I pressed the reasoning behind that, I was told, "I am not going to debate you on this." End of story.

Well, that will save me time searching for mine.

 

[Crack The Sky]

Well, that will save me time searching for mine.

They emailed me this, (along with a lot of other gobbly goop to discourage an application); the wording is quite clear.

"If the FAA has directed you to communicate with an airport control tower on aviation frequencies, you can apply for a portable aircraft license. The FCC would grant it with a special condition to the effect of "Transmissions must be limited to communicating with an airport control tower to coordinate unmanned aircraft system operations." One portable license would cover multiple drones.
If you do not have the FAA directing you to communicate with an airport control tower on aviation frequencies, then you are not eligible for an FCC aircraft station license. You do not need any FCC authorization (provided that the drone operates on frequencies for which no FCC license is required), only an FAA registration".
Like I said; end of story.

 

[RW-1]

They emailed me this, (along with a lot of other gobbly goop to discourage an application); the wording is quite clear.

"If the FAA has directed you to communicate with an airport control tower on aviation frequencies, you can apply for a portable aircraft license. The FCC would grant it with a special condition to the effect of "Transmissions must be limited to communicating with an airport control tower to coordinate unmanned aircraft system operations." One portable license would cover multiple drones.
If you do not have the FAA directing you to communicate with an airport control tower on aviation frequencies, then you are not eligible for an FCC aircraft station license. You do not need any FCC authorization (provided that the drone operates on frequencies for which no FCC license is required), only an FAA registration".
Like I said; end of story.

The FCC is not really aviation orientated. It's like black shoes and brown shoes (Navy)

Of course that begs the question of what they consider an FAA directive ...

Oh BTW, I finally got with my CFII bud, and we completed my 107 Cert on IACRA, have my temp already

 

[Crack The Sky]

The FCC is not really aviation orientated. It's like black shoes and brown shoes (Navy)

Of course that begs the question of what they consider an FAA directive ...

Oh BTW, I finally got with my CFII bud, and we completed my 107 Cert on IACRA, have my temp already

Congratulations on the Part 107!
Sure wish that we, as prior RRTO ticket holders, were exempt from the latest FCC interpretation on the ruling for handheld Av-band transceivers. Maybe I'll just keep calling them until I get someone who says we are.......

 

[RW-1]

Congratulations on the Part 107!
Sure wish that we, as prior RRTO ticket holders, were exempt from the latest FCC interpretation on the ruling for handheld Av-band transceivers. Maybe I'll just keep calling them until I get someone who says we are.......

Thanks. I did the course in Dec, but had no time to physically get with my CFI to process the app hehehe.

You could keep calling, or if you know someone in your FSDO perhaps they could type up a letter for you...

Personally though, I believe we're better off using the phone than a handheld, but it comes down to whom you know and where you are for the operation.

 

[Crack The Sky]

I really have no need for the radio at all. I live in rural Arkansas and actually work at the county airport, part time. Were lucky to see a plane a week. All operations I might do, are in very rural Class G. I look at where some of these poor folks are trying to fly and realize how lucky I am.

 

[RodFlash]

I'm still studying but is sounds like listening to an aviation radio when flying near an airport is a good idea to me.

 

[Crack The Sky]

I'm still studying but is sounds like listening to an aviation radio when flying near an airport is a good idea to me.

It is a good idea. Being that the FCC is playing hardball on the sUAS pilot transmitting,(see above), you could just get a "receiver" and not pay the cost of a "transceiver", ( transmit & receive).
But, if they lighten up on the rules for sUAS to transmit you would have to upgrade.
Here's a very nice little transceiver, for a reasonable price:
Yaesu FTA-230 Transceiver

 

[Fester]

I just went through that; looking for mine. I found it and they do not have an expiration date. With it in hand, I asked the FCC if I could use my long ago issued RRTO to satisfy the FCC requirement to have a RRTO to transmit from the ground. The answer was a FLAT NO. When I pressed the reasoning behind that, I was told, "I am not going to debate you on this." End of story.

I think I've still got mine from around 1970 while in the Civil Air Patrol.

I'm still studying but is sounds like listening to an aviation radio when flying near an airport is a good idea to me.

You can get handheld airband scanners or for that matter a relatively low priced handheld general purpose scanner will work for you just as long as it covers the 108-136 mhz civilian aircraft band (the aircraft band is still AM).

 

[Fester]

I just went through that; looking for mine. I found it and they do not have an expiration date. With it in hand, I asked the FCC if I could use my long ago issued RRTO to satisfy the FCC requirement to have a RRTO to transmit from the ground. The answer was a FLAT NO. When I pressed the reasoning behind that, I was told, "I am not going to debate you on this." End of story.

I've got one too from when I was in the Civil Air Patrol around 1970. And anytime a government agency refuses to debate you, it just means you have a valid point

 

[Crack The Sky]

I've got one too from when I was in the Civil Air Patrol around 1970. And anytime a government agency refuses to debate you, it just means you have a valid point

Roger that....

 

[THA]

I've got one too from when I was in the Civil Air Patrol around 1970. And anytime a government agency refuses to debate you, it just means you have a valid point

not necessarily, it means that that person does not have a clue and doesn't want to spend the time to do their job.

 

[Crack The Sky]

not necessarily, it means that that person does not have a clue and doesn't want to spend the time to do their job.

I agree with both of you.

 

[Fester]

not necessarily, it means that that person does not have a clue and doesn't want to spend the time to do their job.

Well, I didn't want to bring that up...but since you have