Aviation handheld radios, instructors, student solos...

RyanShort1

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
5,693
Location
Dallas, Texas
Display Name

Display name:
RyanShort1
Ok, so this just became an issue for a group I work with, but I'm beginning to think it has a lot of implications for a lot more than this other group.

Some guy that scans lots of channels, and apparently looks for these kinds of things :rolleyes2: sent said group a letter pointing out that any ground based radios must be licensed with the FCC for use - even on a CTAF or Unicom frequency. So, I really didn't want to do this, but as a member of that group, I got assigned (why...?) the very unsavory task of researching this. So a few phone calls later I'm confused and annoyed. It seems that the FCC would require even a handheld, perhaps used by a CFI, to be licensed as a ground station in order to be legally used on CTAF. However, it looks to me like a CFI might not even meet the "eligibility" requirements for that license, and might be assigned a frequency that would be unhelpful for say a student solo...

Anyone here have more knowledge of the subject?

Oh, and we MAYBE use that frequency (which is published on the FAA charts...) for fly-ins or stuff maybe a total of 25 hours a year - if that!
 
Before the "legal scholars" swoop in, a simple question:

How many people have been fined/prosecuted/cited/penalized for using a handheld transciever for ground to air communications at a fly-in or during a student solo?

Is there one case in the last twenty years that doesn't have extenuating circumstances?
 
I'd be very surprised if the FCC cared enough to actually pursue an enforcement action on this. Especially if the only person complaining is this guy who sits around scanning frequencies and has nothing better to do than send your group a letter to stir the pot. That's assuming that they even consider this a violation. I can't think of a non-towered field where people don't do that.

Sounds like you have a guy like my neighbors who has nothing better to do than pick nits and try to annoy you. If you ignore him, he'll go away. If he complains to the FCC and they actually come have a chat with you about this and care, then you may have to change something. In the meantime, I wouldn't bother. As you said, it's not a daily use, it's a very infrequent use, and this is in line with nationwide practice that nobody seems to care about.
 
The irony of this all is this: I could theoretically go sit in the Cub, and get on Air-to-Air on 122.75, or on CTAF with the student, or let folks at the fly-in know what's going on and be legal - except my visibility would be fairly poor. From what the FCC gal said, if I set foot on the ground outside of the aircraft, I'm now operating as a ground station and subject to licensing rules - IF I even meet the eligibility requirements - which she said I'd have to determine from the regs - which seemed irrelevant to me. How stupid is that...
For now I'm going to pull the Cub out and sit in it... if I need to transmit.

Ryan
 
is there a minimum required power for the transmitter before it needs a license?
 
The irony of this all is this: I could theoretically go sit in the Cub, and get on Air-to-Air on 122.75, or on CTAF with the student, or let folks at the fly-in know what's going on and be legal - except my visibility would be fairly poor.

I'd be tempted to do nothing until the FCC says something. Then claim ignorance and vow to make whatever changes are required. My guess is you'll never hear anything from them.
 
The irony of this all is this: I could theoretically go sit in the Cub, and get on Air-to-Air on 122.75, or on CTAF with the student, or let folks at the fly-in know what's going on and be legal - except my visibility would be fairly poor. From what the FCC gal said, if I set foot on the ground outside of the aircraft, I'm now operating as a ground station and subject to licensing rules - IF I even meet the eligibility requirements - which she said I'd have to determine from the regs - which seemed irrelevant to me. How stupid is that...
For now I'm going to pull the Cub out and sit in it... if I need to transmit.

Ryan

I'm no aviation lawyer but this might be what you're looking for.

http://www.superawos.com/FCC_ruling.htm

It contains other amendments, but for the subject at hand:

Amendment of Part 87 to Permit the )
Use of 112-118 MHz for Differential Global ) WT Docket No. 96-211
Positioning System (GPS) Correction Data ) RM-8607, 8687
and the Use of Hand-held Transmitters)
on Frequencies in the Aeronautical )
Enroute Service )
.
.
.

III. CONCLUSION

34. In view of the foregoing, we are amending Parts 17 and 87 of the rules to: (1) permit the operation of automated unicom stations, (2) facilitate the transmission of differential GPS augmentation data to aircraft, (3) allow ground crews at airports to communicate directly with flight crews using aeronautical enroute frequencies, and (4) incorporate, by reference, two revised FAA Advisory Circulars concerning antenna structure painting and lighting. These amendments will improve air safety by facilitating the implementation of state-of-the-art radio technologies promoting operational flexibility in the Aviation Services and will unify federal guidelines concerning the painting and lighting of antenna structures.



The full document also appears on the FCC website as a WORDPERFECT file...:confused:

www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/fcc99040.wp


it's been my experience the FCC and the FAA don't always communicate aviation communication rules within or without their respective agencies

aka ELTs

and now GPS vs 4G

http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system...us-gps-jamming-fcc-approved-broadcaster-11029

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/4G_Broadband_May_Jam_GPS_204069-1.html
 
Last edited:
Anyone here have more knowledge of the subject?

You are dealing with a self appointed radio nazi.. He is technically correct about the need for licensure. But its practically unenforceable, and the FCC has much bigger fish to fry (i.e. pirate broadcasters and malicious interference)

If confronted personally, Tell him thank you, you will get that license right away, and forget about him. Keep in mind you have no obligation to show him a copy of your license, your ID, or anything else, unless or until he shows you FCC Govt credentials. Which as a self appointed radio nazi he just simply wont have.

HOW can he tell by someone broadcasting on a handheld if they are licensed or not? We dont use station call signs, just N Numbers, in common practice.
 
aircraft, (3) allow ground crews at airports to communicate directly with flight crews using aeronautical enroute frequencies,

What this tells me is that you can use a ground station on an air to air frequency, it doesn't negate the need for a ground station license. But nobody really cares about the ground station license as long as you aren't disrupting the frequency for miles around with the ground station.
 
What this tells me is that you can use a ground station on an air to air frequency, it doesn't negate the need for a ground station license. But nobody really cares about the ground station license as long as you aren't disrupting the frequency for miles around with the ground station.

If someone uses 123.3, which is not listed as either air-to-air or air-to-ground in AIM table 4-1-3 but is OK for "aviation instruction," s/he would have a clear conscience.

Bob Gardner
 
What this tells me is that you can use a ground station on an air to air frequency, it doesn't negate the need for a ground station license. But nobody really cares about the ground station license as long as you aren't disrupting the frequency for miles around with the ground station.


Well, in the Executive Summary it states

we are allowing the use of mobile radios for direct communications between ground service personnel and flight crews on frequencies allocated to the Aeronautical Enroute Service

imho, if you meet the criteria in paragraph 31:

...the use of mobile radios at airports for communications by ground service personnel with aircraft or the associated enroute station will not operate on air traffic control frequencies or cause interference to air traffic control communications. Also, the operators of an aeronautical enroute station will ensure that personnel using the mobile radios are properly trained and made aware of the restriction on the use of the equipment.

it seems to me you can talk to an aircraft or the FBO, or the Airboss, over unicom or other frequencies that don't interfere with ATC communications using a handheld without the specific handheld being "licensed". ( I know at least at one airshow the Airboss frequency is the local TRACON sector "alternate" frequency. )

The amendment recognizes the safety benefits of using a handheld radio and I think that if it was being used in the context of improving safety there is no prohibition in its use. Might not be the letter of the law, but certainly meets the intent.

Just one man's opinion.

(in other words I agree with you...:wink2: )
 
Last edited:
If someone uses 123.3, which is not listed as either air-to-air or air-to-ground in AIM table 4-1-3 but is OK for "aviation instruction," s/he would have a clear conscience.

Bob Gardner
But that requires a ground or ground mobile license according to the FCC... and does not help if you have a student in the pattern with one radio.

Ryan
 
But that requires a ground or ground mobile license according to the FCC... and does not help if you have a student in the pattern with one radio.

Ryan
Only 1 radio in the plane, or one transmit radio?

Something that I remember my CFI doing when I first soloed (at a tower controlled field) was showing me how to set up the audio panel to listen to Comm 2 while talking to tower on Comm 1. I do not recall the frequency we used, but it may very well have been 123.3. That way he could provide any comments while I was in the pattern and if for some reason I needed to talk to him, I could simply flip the transmit to the Comm 2.
 
More info

http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title47/47-5.0.1.1.2.html#47:5.0.1.1.2.2.91.13

PART 87—AVIATION SERVICES
§ 87.89 Minimum operator requirements.

(a) A station operator must hold a commercial radio operator license or permit, except as listed in paragraph (d).

(b) The minimum operator license or permit required for operation of each specific classification is:


[SIZE=-1]Minimum Operator License or Permit[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Land stations, all classes[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]—All frequencies except VHF telephony transmitters providing domestic service [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1].[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1].[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1].[/SIZE]


(d) No operator license is required to:
(1) Operate an aircraft radar set, radio altimeter, transponder or other aircraft automatic radionavigation transmitter by flight personnel;
(2) Test an emergency locator transmitter or a survival craft station used solely for survival purposes;
(3) Operate an aeronautical enroute station which automatically transmits digital communications to aircraft stations;
(4) Operate a VHF telephony transmitter providing domestic service or used on domestic flights.


If you think your radio needs a license then

Subpart K—Aviation Support Stations

and

Subpart L—Aeronautical Utility Mobile Stations

can probably provide the bases you can use to apply for one.

But I think you'll be setting a far-reaching precdent in doing so.
 
Last edited:
If confronted personally, Tell him thank you, you will get that license right away, and forget about him. Keep in mind you have no obligation to show him a copy of your license, your ID, or anything else, unless or until he shows you FCC Govt credentials. Which as a self appointed radio nazi he just simply wont have.

Exactly. No need to sit in the Cub, at all. The "license" will be kept in the hangar (even if you don't have one).
 
From what I understand you do need a license and the FCC has busted a few people for using handhelds at an airport. I wouldn't sweat it til the man came knocking. As for your helpful radio friend why don't you invite him over to the airport to inspect your radio equipment and licenses for conformity then when he shows up punch him the throat.:wink2: Okay I'm joking, well sort of.
 
From what I understand you do need a license and the FCC has busted a few people for using handhelds at an airport. I wouldn't sweat it til the man came knocking. As for your helpful radio friend why don't you invite him over to the airport to inspect your radio equipment and licenses for conformity then when he shows up punch him the throat.:wink2: Okay I'm joking, well sort of.

While funny, that would be profoundly unproductive.

When confronted with a pest, you either kill it (probably excessive), or ignore it. Either way, it'll leave you alone after a bit.
 
If someone uses 123.3, which is not listed as either air-to-air or air-to-ground in AIM table 4-1-3 but is OK for "aviation instruction," s/he would have a clear conscience.

Bob Gardner

That assertion doesn't appear to be consistent with FCC enforcement procedures. According to http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=about&id=ground_stations
"Aviation support stations are airborne and ground stations used for pilot training, soaring (with gliders), or free ballooning."
Yet according to http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1258A1.html
a Texas soaring association was fined $9000 for willful violation of the regulations for using 123.3 from a ground station for a soaring activity without a station license. No mention in that order is made of any exceptions in the need for a station license.

So while the FCC seems to define the term "aviation support station," they still seem to expect such ground stations to be licensed.
 
Only 1 radio in the plane, or one transmit radio?

Something that I remember my CFI doing when I first soloed (at a tower controlled field) was showing me how to set up the audio panel to listen to Comm 2 while talking to tower on Comm 1. I do not recall the frequency we used, but it may very well have been 123.3. That way he could provide any comments while I was in the pattern and if for some reason I needed to talk to him, I could simply flip the transmit to the Comm 2.
At least two of the planes I sometimes train in have only one Com (or working Com) on the plane and it can get very busy at times. Of course I try NOT to talk to students on solo, but the unexpected can occur.

And no, I don't think that dealing with a thread as described above is appropriate at all.

I don't want to go get a license if I don't have to. I personally think the whole thing's unConstitutional, but that's another matter entirely, and I choose to operate within the system, so I want to know the "right' thing to do. I'm fairly confident that the Cub solution is legal... Otherwise we have much bigger issues.

Ryan
 
Exactly. No need to sit in the Cub, at all. The "license" will be kept in the hangar (even if you don't have one).
Apparently the guy that sent this letter has access to some sort of database that tells who is and isn't licensed. Apparently the other group's license to operate expired several years ago without anyone noticing.

Ryan
 
Unicom usually licensed by the FBO. They may take issue other uses. Base licenses usually include mobiles and handheld within a certain distance and power so the airport personnel and vehicles are covered. Instruction, or air-air even multi-comm would be better freqs unless your unicom is really quiet.
 
Some guy that scans lots of channels, and apparently looks for these kinds of things :rolleyes2: sent said group a letter pointing out that any ground based radios must be licensed with the FCC for use - even on a CTAF or Unicom frequency. So, I really didn't want to do this, but as a member of that group, I got assigned (why...?) the very unsavory task of researching this. So a few phone calls later I'm confused and annoyed. It seems that the FCC would require even a handheld, perhaps used by a CFI, to be licensed as a ground station in order to be legally used on CTAF. However, it looks to me like a CFI might not even meet the "eligibility" requirements for that license, and might be assigned a frequency that would be unhelpful for say a student solo...

Anyone here have more knowledge of the subject?

Oh, and we MAYBE use that frequency (which is published on the FAA charts...) for fly-ins or stuff maybe a total of 25 hours a year - if that!

Yes, he's correct. All radios utilized in Aviation band service must have a station license or be specifically exempted.

"Hand-held Aviation VHF Radio: You may only use your hand-held aviation VHF radio from your aircraft, or under the authority of an FCC ground station authorization. Ground station authorizations are usually only issued to aviation service organizations located on airports, businesses engaged in pilot training, aircraft manufacturers, or persons engaged in chase activities related to soaring and ballooning."

If you're operating the handheld radio under the authority of the radio station license issued to the entity holding the UNICOM license (Aviation Fixed) and their license allows such operation, you're good. You need to check with the UNICOM station licensee.

But, usually the reason activities other than UNICOM are moved to another frequency and a license is NOT granted to be on the UNICOM frequency is that mobile and hand-held radios are notorious for having "stuck mic" problems, and the FCC even recognizes that in their license scheme. They'd prefer NOT to set you up for an hour of "no one can talk on the UNICOM" because some volunteer has his HT jammed in his butt jeans pocket with the PTT keyed and no one can figure out that he's gone off-field to lunch at McDonald's.

So there really is a good reason NOT to have operations on the UNICOM frequency.

In addition, the FCC clearly states that the UNICOM station(s) are to talk to AIRCRAFT, and never to each other. If you're using the HTs to talk to each other, that's not the purpose and scope of the Aviation band radio service, that's Land Mobile Radio, and requires different radio gear.

There is also a "Special Issuance" available for situations like you're talking about, when doing temporary events like airshows, fly-ins, etc. These are usually MULTICOM and not on the UNICOM frequency, which is considered an "ATC" frequency by the FCC in some ways. Any of the large airshows will have a communications person on staff who knows how to apply for the appropriate licenses, and it's in their budget. Many of the larger airshow teams also have on-board radios in both the Aviation and Land Mobile licensing realms for coordination of their show activities with their ground crews.

Anyway, best advice is -- everything you need to know is in 47 CFR Part 87. Here's one online copy I found via Google, there are probably better ones that aren't advertising-laden...

http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title47/47-5.0.1.1.2.html

And if you want a real laugh, see if you think FBOs are following 47 CFR 87.109 while you're there.

The really fascinating section is 87.127, which covers frequencies, and shows how many "other" things are on board many aircraft.

And this one...

"47 CFR 87.213 (b)(1) Unicom transmissions must be limited to the necessities of safe and expeditious operation of aircraft such as condition of runways, types of fuel available, wind conditions, weather information, dispatching, or other necessary information. At any airport at which a control tower, control tower remote communications outlet station (RCO) or FAA flight service station is located, unicoms must not transmit information pertaining to the conditions of runways, wind conditions, or weather information during the hours of operation of the control tower, RCO or FAA service station.

It makes sense, but it's an interesting items since it's actually codified into law that... UNICOMs are specifically BANNED from providing information that the FAA has "official" versions of, if there's an RCO or other way to reach them from an airport. Written long-prior to the outsourcing of such services to LockMart.

I'm sure the last time I called a UNICOM, the operator dutifully logged the contact, and never gave me any information I could get from the FAA. :rolleyes2:

Many have said the FCC won't prosecute... I would say, just like the FAA... you'll never know when you might get "ramp checked". The FCC Field Offices are low on staff these days, and chasing more important things most of the time, but like the FAA... all it takes is the right "phone call" from someone to the field office alleging anonymously that you're in violation and don't have licenses and... a friendly FCC Field tech could show up in one of their nifty monitoring vans. Why mess with it, just get appropriately licensed, I say. It's relatively inexpensive, and the licenses last 10 years.

http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=service_home&id=ground_stations

Now this isn't someone who used Aviation band radios, but here's an example of the FCC getting a lot of money out of an aviation organization who didn't pay attention to the licensing issues as they grew...

http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1451A1.html

The typical "voluntary donation" (read: fine) from the FCC is $10,000 for most infractions these days...
 
That assertion doesn't appear to be consistent with FCC enforcement procedures. According to http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=about&id=ground_stations
"Aviation support stations are airborne and ground stations used for pilot training, soaring (with gliders), or free ballooning."
Yet according to http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1258A1.html
a Texas soaring association was fined $9000 for willful violation of the regulations for using 123.3 from a ground station for a soaring activity without a station license. No mention in that order is made of any exceptions in the need for a station license.

So while the FCC seems to define the term "aviation support station," they still seem to expect such ground stations to be licensed.

Yes they do. And "willful" is the key word here. Once notified that you're operating an unlicensed station in ANY radio service in the U.S., if you continue to operate after that... you're "willfully" violating the law, and the fines start to stack up rather quickly after that.
 
He's bluffing. Anyway, who cares?
I care in a society that's increasingly looking like the old days in Russia where you tattle to the KGB on your neighbor and are encourage to say something to the TSA if you see something. If he's sending out letters now, how long will it be before he or some disgruntled FCC employee "whistleblower" stooge testifies to some Congressional panel about these violations.
For sure, from now on, my handheld gets used in an aircraft, or in a real emergency only, in which case the FCC can do what they like.

Ryan
 
I care in a society that's increasingly looking like the old days in Russia where you tattle to the KGB on your neighbor and are encourage to say something to the TSA if you see something. If he's sending out letters now, how long will it be before he or some disgruntled FCC employee "whistleblower" stooge testifies to some Congressional panel about these violations.
For sure, from now on, my handheld gets used in an aircraft, or in a real emergency only, in which case the FCC can do what they like.

Ryan

Wow -- it sounds to me like your caving to the informant, rather than using your good ole American right to tell him to stick it where the sun don't shine.

:dunno:
 
Wow -- it sounds to me like your caving to the informant, rather than using your good ole American right to tell him to stick it where the sun don't shine.

:dunno:
No, I'm not... I just want to know for sure what the "law" says. That guy can do whatever he likes, but I was assigned to find out by the group, so that's what I'm doing. We can be creative (like the Cub deal) once we know for sure what the law says.

Ryan
 
No, I'm not... I just want to know for sure what the "law" says. That guy can do whatever he likes, but I was assigned to find out by the group, so that's what I'm doing. We can be creative (like the Cub deal) once we know for sure what the law says.

Ryan


I think there's plenty of informed opinion here that has demonstrated "the law" is rather ambiguous.

If it wasn't, we wouldn't have lawyers, and where would we be then???

So -- help save the lawyers. Support Legalized Ambiguity! :thumbsup:
 
Wow -- it sounds to me like your caving to the informant, rather than using your good ole American right to tell him to stick it where the sun don't shine.

:dunno:

Kinda seems a bit "drama queen"-ish, since FCC radio station licenses have been around since ... forever; e.g. longer than my lifetime ... for ALL radios... and it takes like 10 minutes and a credit card to properly license any station on the FCC website.
:dunno::thumbsup:

I still remember when aircraft had to have licenses on board... ARROW... you know the second R was "RADIO" license... after REGISTRATION... (and you still need it for International operations...)

The FCC got disinterested in the 90's in maintaining domestic aircraft licenses and waived the requirement, but they never waived the requirement for ground stations to be licensed. The fact that people forgot isn't really their problem...

But then again, I have a vested interest in licensing radios properly since I've got a number of non-commercial and commercial interests in licenses that are not aviation-related, and the FCC has been known to put all of ones licenses into a "set aside" status for "review" if you've "willfully" ignored them for any particular license required by the various other services you partake in.

It's no different than a driver's license, really. Or a pilot's license. They're all Adminstrative Law, and the comment that they're "Unconstitutional" is kinda funny. Maybe true, but I bet you're sitting on your driver's license in your wallet right now, and aren't ranting about that one. Maybe because it's a State function, you're okay with it Constitutionally, so that might be a bad example. But there are certainly a number of nationally issued licenses for things, including the pilot's license you're also sitting on in that same wallet. Adding a radio station license for a ground station isn't worthy of any "drama" about Constitutionality. LOL! :cool2: :D

Operate a radio, have a license, or show where it's specifically exempted from having one for a particular use. There's plenty of exempted services out there... FRS, CB, and various other services besides aircraft are also exempt. Who here remembers when CB was licensed? I do. Dad's callsign was KYP4123.

Even your cell phone carrier has a license for the base stations you're transmitting to, and a license that covers your use of your cell phone to use that frequency and network...

It's really not that big a deal. Just apply for a license or operate under the existing FBO's license. If it expired, renew it or apply for a new one. 10 minutes in 10 years and a small fee. You'll spend more on the next "$100 hamburger".

As far as the guy with the scanners who actually took the time to come tell you... he probably needs to get a life, but he's right. And often-times these introverts that sit around doing that kind of monitoring are good at annoying the hell out of the Field Office so they go take action.

Why risk it? And why get angry or obsessed with it? Just license the radios properly. It's not hard.

Just to show I'm not a total wonk, and have a sense of humor here...

If one were wanting to "mess with the system" one might create a "Religious Organization" dedicated to aviation, and license a Land Mobile frequency under the church rules... nationwide. ;) Make sure you've created a way to appoint "clergy" and an official "training program", and watch how fast the application flies through the process. (Pun intended.) Government won't mess with religious groups applying for licenses, typically.

I believe it's time for the "1st Church of Soaring Amongst the Angels" to be chartered, nationwide. Head Grand Poo-bah will be appointed from the "flock", and the organization will require a national license for communication amongst the brethren. Do I hear an "Amen, Cleared to Land" from the Sheep?

(And no, I can't take credit for the above idea, but I do know of at least one "Religious Organization" that has a multi-state VHF Land-Mobile license. It's called the "First Church of the Holy Shovel", amongst the members, but has a more formal sounding name in the FCC database, I believe. I know the folks who have... or used to have... the license, and the story behind the name... and they really do have pastors and all of that, just in case the FCC is wondering or reading along. The "flock" rarely uses the shared business-band frequency. Drinking is a required sacrament.)
 
Last edited:
It's no different than a driver's license, really. Or a pilot's license. They're all Adminstrative Law, and the comment that they're "Unconstitutional" is kinda funny. Maybe true, but I bet you're sitting on your driver's license in your wallet right now, and aren't ranting about that one. Maybe because it's a State function, you're okay with it Constitutionally, so that might be a bad example. But there are certainly a number of nationally issued licenses for things, including the pilot's license you're also sitting on in that same wallet. Adding a radio station license for a ground station isn't worthy of any "drama" about Constitutionality. LOL! :cool2: :D
Yeah, that's why I'm asking. I disagree with several of those things in theory, but find it imprudent to buck something so relatively insignificant in the current environment. You can't fight every battle with enough energy to win and bigger issues get priority. Of course if I had lots of money...

Ryan
 
Some people don't think there should be drivers licenses and pilots licenses and certainly not radio licenses. Most of the airwave licensing schemes is rentseeking protecting existing business from disruptive innovation. Punch em all in the throat.:D
 
No, I'm not... I just want to know for sure what the "law" says. That guy can do whatever he likes, but I was assigned to find out by the group, so that's what I'm doing. We can be creative (like the Cub deal) once we know for sure what the law says.

Ryan

Hmm, well the little tattle is probably breaking multiple laws every day too, possibly even FCC / FAA regs. Should they not be in violation of any of those, I'd suggest looking for other possible legal infractions.

People like this only change when their a$$ is tossed into the fire. Personally, take the threat seriously, cause he's probably got nothing better to do. He'll whine until someone shows up at your door.

I'd say look for any laws he might have broken in a given day, but why waste your time. He is probably right (technically) about the license, but giving him any attention (especially negative) will just encourage him.

This guy is an example of the jerks you see in HOA boards.
 
Why mess with it, just get appropriately licensed, I say. It's relatively inexpensive, and the licenses last 10 years.

I'm probably looking at the wrong fee schedule (followed one of the links in a link we both posted here,) but I think you're mistaken in the "relatively inexpensive" aspect. At least according to http://wireless.fcc.gov/feesforms/feeguide/services/aviation.pdf the fee appears to be $220. That can roughly double the amount one needs to invest in a "cheap" hand-held. This would certainly explain why people are reluctant to follow through on licensing. Do hand-held aviation come with instructions on how to license them as ground stations? Lack of guidance probably yields another hurdle.
 
So...?

:dunno:

Seriously -- I think this thread is longer than all the ground to air transmitting I've done in ten years. Which includes Student solos.

So I think your situation (student solos where the student probably isn't going to talk to you anyway) is probably quite different from the OP's request, which stated that some unknown type of organization, at a fixed location (FBO or similar -- glider club, whatever) let their existing license expire for operation at that location.

Your operation could even fall under the all-encompassing "emergency" rules that tend to override everything in FCC Administrative Law. If your student needs to talk to you during a solo, the definition of "emergency" could probably be bent to work if you had to defend it before an Administrative Law Judge, since thousands of students have soloed without their CFI in their ear, including myself...

Of course, that could lead to the FAA saying, "Why did your student need you?" and a whole different can o' worms. ;)

In your situation, I tend to agree with you... A CFI out on the ramp "assisting" a student is a completely different thing than a group/club operating regularly on a particular frequency at a fixed location for "fly-ins" as the OP stated.

They should operate under the FBO's license, if at all possible, which would easily mitigate the cost-factor involved. The FBO should have a Station License, and if it expired, it should be renewed. There's no good legal standing to do otherwise.

Having ten people running around on the ramp using the FBO's license gets into the gray area, where most folks would just shrug and not care, including the FCC. But an FBO operating without a license, they will come down on.
 
Back
Top