UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Flight Crew Private
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 30; Flight Crew Total 300; Flight Crew Type 100
Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Chart Or Publication; Procedure
I am a current private pilot SEL and commercial UAV (i.e. drone) pilot with Section 333 waiver and blanket COA (Certificate of Authority). I believed that my COA restricted me from flying within 5 miles of a towered airport without either authorization from the local ATC (i.e. tower) OR an amended COA setting out procedures for flying within 5 miles of a towered airport. I believed that I was following all requirements in my Section 333 waiver and COA when I was planning my flight to capture video footage for a TV station after a tornado. I filed a NOTAM and contacted the tower because my intended flight path came within 3.5 miles of a towered airport. After a description of my intended operation with the ATC tower manager which included the location of my flight; the anticipated duration of my flight(s); my flight path; the NOTAM #; my N#; and altitude (surface to 100ft) the ATC manager cleared the flight and I told him I would call back when it was concluded. I conducted 3 short flights totaling 20 minutes or less maintaining visual line of sight of the UAV at or below 100 ft AGL without incident. However; a day after the flights another pilot mentioned to me that he thought I needed a special COA to fly within 5 miles of a towered airport. I told him that it was my understanding that EITHER an amended COA OR authorization from the local ATC or airport tower manager was sufficient but that both were not required under my 333. I have actually applied for a special COA based upon the ATC at the tower where my home airport is located refusing to authorize any commercial UAV flights within 5 miles of their airport because they have never received a request from a 333 waiver holder. Although my home base ATC manager did not cite any safety concerns for refusing to authorize UAV flights he did say that he would send it up the chain of command. Since the ATC tower manager at the airport near which the flight which is the subject of this report 'cleared' and authorized my flight I believed that I was in compliance with all regulations. However; upon reviewing my Section 333 waiver and COA I saw that the specific language requires either a special COA OR Letter of Agreement (LOA) for flights within 5 miles of an airport. In the event that a LOA is required to actually be a written letter as opposed to a verbal communication authorizing the flight operation; although I complied with the intent of the rules by getting authorization for the flight I may not have been in compliance with the letter of the law. If that is the case my error was certainly unintentional based upon my misunderstanding of the requirements in my Section 333 waiver and COA. Unfortunately local ATC personnel are not familiar with the requirements and several attempts to contact FSDO with questions about my special COA application have not been successful. Additionally; since I did not have any commercial flights at all in 2015 (they were all training flights on my property) I did not file the monthly reports required under my 333 when due. However; after clarifying that the reports were due even of no flights were conducted I did file all past reports before the end of the year 2015 and I recently filed my January 2016 report. Although there is no guidance suggesting when the reports are due I have marked my calendar to file monthly reports within the 30 day period following the month in which the report is due.
A commercial UAS Operator was granted permission from local ATC to fly 3.5 miles from the Class C airport; but later questioned whether a Section 333 Letter of Agreement and Certificate of Authorization were legally required for his intended operation.