Security (Securite?) Calls

[KE5BM]

Controllers...have a question for you. If you could point me to the FAR/AIM reference for my question I'd appreciate it because I've failed to find it.

In the maritime environment, Security (Securite) calls are common. Generally used when a vessel is getting underway or transiting a very busy area and may be less-than-maneuverable. The Coast Guard overuses it in that every single freaking time we move a ship, someone feels it necessary to announce to the whole world that we're moving. But I digress...

In addition to my PPL certificate I also hold a Part 107 UAS certificate intended for use within the Coast Guard. Recently, within our channels there has been some discussion about a near mishap that occurred not too long ago between a Coast Guard helicopter and a drone over a sporting event. One pilot had told us the FAA threw a fit when he had suggested using air band radios while conducting UAS operations. Another said the FAA recommended it. So it appears there needs to be a policy developed. But more to the point of my question, my use of Coast Guard UAS operations would be in the vicinity of my station to collect data on waterway changes and possibly to be able to put eyes on a vessel in need of assistance. As it happens, my station is in close proximity to a non-towered airport (CQX) and whale/shark spotter planes flying at 500' AGL are common in the summer. In my mind, a securite call over the local UNICOM 122.8 to announce my UAS operations "in the vicinity of <wherever I am>" seems a small piece of insurance for the safety of all involved.

For the controllers, do you view this as a beneficial practice or not? Also, if I'm operating in non-controlled space would you WANT me to call APP/DEP to notify of my operation or would that just be more white noise?

It seems it's only a matter of time before we have a major mishap between an aircraft and UAS. In the short time I've been involved in UAS operations, it seems the policies are still being written and a stance of "it ain't happened yet" seems to prevail.

 

[flyingron]

It's rare that you hear SECURITE or PAN PAN in aviation. In fact, MAYDAY isn't all that common either.

MAYDAY? Why, that's the Russian New Year. We can have a parade and serve hot hors d'oeuvres...

 

[Skip Miller]

@KE5BM wrote, in part: "For the controllers, do you view this as a beneficial practice or not? Also, if I'm operating in non-controlled space would you WANT me to call APP/DEP to notify of my operation or would that just be more white noise? [end quote]

The New York Class B airspace tops out at 7,000 feet agl. I happened to be at a gathering where some JFK Controllers were answering questions from us mortals. I did ask if it would be helpful if VFR Traffic over the Bravo at 7,500 feet should check in with the NY Controllers and the answer was a firm NO. If you are not in the Bravo, with no intention of entering the Bravo, don't bother them.

By extension it seems that radio calls to Cape Approach would just be white noise. I am not sure I agree with that. But there you are.....

-Skip

 

[kkoran]

I think the real issue is that small UAS are nearly impossible for pilots to see and avoid, hence the it is the responsibility of the UAS operator to avoid manned aircraft. Since pilots can't see your UAS in time to avoid it, what benefit is there in telling them about it unless your expectation is that they will avoid the area?

From an ATC perspective, what do you expect a controller to do when you advise that you are operating in an area below controlled airspace? Advise aircraft that may be talking to them? Same issues as above, plus the added workload of listening to and understanding your explanation of what you are doing and then advising aircraft that might be affected (though shouldn't be since you are required to avoid them).

Do the spotter aircraft monitor 122.8?

 

[4CornerFlyer]

The New York Class B airspace tops out at 7,000 feet agl. I happened to be at a gathering where some JFK Controllers were answering questions from us mortals. I did ask if it would be helpful if VFR Traffic over the Bravo at 7,500 feet should check in with the NY Controllers and the answer was a firm NO. If you are not in the Bravo, with no intention of entering the Bravo, don't bother them.

This is contrary to every response I have ever heard to this question in the past 40 years, including referring to the NY airspace. Most if not all controllers find it useful to know the intentions of VFR aircraft flying in their approach and departure areas, even if outside charted Class B airspace. That does not mean some facilities are less than helpful to VFR transition flights in all circumstances.
Jon.

 

[DJTorrente]

The New York Class B airspace tops out at 7,000 feet agl. I happened to be at a gathering where some JFK Controllers were answering questions from us mortals. I did ask if it would be helpful if VFR Traffic over the Bravo at 7,500 feet should check in with the NY Controllers and the answer was a firm NO. If you are not in the Bravo, with no intention of entering the Bravo, don't bother them.

-Skip

This is contrary to every response I have ever heard to this question in the past 40 years, including referring to the NY airspace. Most if not all controllers find it useful to know the intentions of VFR aircraft flying in their approach and departure areas, even if outside charted Class B airspace. That does not mean some facilities are less than helpful to VFR transition flights in all circumstances.
Jon.

On one particular flight I made along the CT shoreline that crossed over the Bridgeport class D cylinder (2500 top) at 3000 MSL, westbound I called tower and advised my intentions -- the controller thanked me and that was the last we spoke. Later that same day eastbound, I did likewise and got a dismissive rebuke from the tower position. NY Tracon over the tri-oval is a hell of a lot busier than BDR tower, but the moral of the story to me is that it depends who's on the other end of the microphone.

 

[Bell206]

It seems it's only a matter of time before we have a major mishap between an aircraft and UAS. In the short time I've been involved in UAS operations, it seems the policies are still being written and a stance of "it ain't happened yet" seems to prevail.

Except the major issue is with recreational small drone operators. There are already a number of UAS rules out there which the recreational operators, in general, choose not to follow. So its not that there are not rules or policies, its the difficulty in enforcing those rules at the recreational level. This has been an ongoing issue within the rotorcraft industry. And as the sighting numbers of unauthorized small drones continues to grow each year, I think the next set rules issued will be outright bans of recreational use in certain areas along with a higher level of penalties.

 

[Velocity173]

I agree with KK above. What would the controller have to do in that situation? They can’t issue traffic unless the drone is big enough to get a primary. As a heads up to manned aircraft that would help but there are already UAS graphical NOTAMs for that purpose. Generally 3nm and 400ft. Even then, they’re not TFRs and if a manned aircraft flys through, it’s still on the UAS to see and avoid.

Until we have system in place that allows for FF for drones and a step further, makes it mandatory, we’re always gonna have near misses.

 

[Wheels]

From the FCC website
“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. ”

 

[KE5BM]

...from your aircraft,...

But my operating position for my aircraft is on the ground. This is the kind of stuff I'm referring to when I say policy is still being written.

Do the spotter aircraft monitor 122.8?

Most of them do, but the other frequency they use is posted at the local FBO so I'll have that on Dual Watch.


Don't get me wrong, I know full well that it's the UAS operator's responsibility to see and avoid. However, we've already seen enough close calls between good-natured UAS pilots and manned pilots so I'd like to take an extra step toward safety. I'm thinking graphical UAS NOTAMs won't ever be in the cards for Coast Guard operations as they're testing them so far. I'm getting my first crack at the new model of Coast Guard UAS tomorrow so I'll have a better idea of what we're working with. I'll keep y'all posted.