HI Don ...thanks for the update ..YES I AM KEN that you referred to in this piece. First, I have both radio operator certification/licences for Marine and Aircraft so I am very familiar with radio compliance and procedures, Second my main concern and example I used with ISED was that I fly near an "unmanned" airport i.e. Deep River where the manager of the field could be flying in the area and not available to answer a phone call when I was trying to inform him of my flight plan near the airfield. Third: I am amazed that being the original requestor, that I have never been contacted by ISED to be used as a demonstrator or test case as I complied with ALL the requirements to obtain a base license complete with a bonified / safety concern reason to be permitted to operate while in the area of an airport as needed and required.
As an update, I have since given my radio/transceiver to a personal friend in Kingston who is a registered pilot with two airplanes. The regulations do NOT allow me to use the radio in my possession as a monitor only, as it has a TX key with the ability to transmit and thus, I would be in contravention of the law and subject to fines etc all for the case to trying to act responsible and in a safe manner while piloting my drone near airfields. Note: My concern/ application took many months to get a response from ISED by a gentleman from Newfoundland who I believe fulfills the position on a "part time" basis! As you can deduce, the response was NOT satisfactory or addressed the concerns of communication with "unmanned" airports of which there are many in Ontario alone!!!
Hi Ken! Thank you once again for identifying this issue and sticking to it! Your concern and need for radio transmission was legitimate, and your preparation was complete. I can't believe they did not contact you as a candidate for the trial (not that any trials apparently took place) nor even to update you.
@@DonJoyce Hey Thanks Don for the reply...Just keeping everyone updated and to think I had the original application that started this "mess" and was left out of the consideration for trial testing is inexcusable. I knew I was not going to be successful with my original application because of the length of time it took for ISED to get back to me with some kind of "lame" excuse as my concern and reasoning for procuring a licence was sound and promoted a "safe" operation of the drone. Just to let everyone know, I checked the date of my "Marine" radio licence and have been in possession for 34 years and my ROC-A since 2022. I do understand operational requirements and protocol !!
Thank you, Don, for this detailed, clear and concise update on the Aviation Radio issue. Canada Drone Pilots are very grateful to you, with your wisdom and commitment.
Hi Don, great video! Thank you. Perhaps some representatives from ISED can be invited to see first hand how important this is for flight safety. Thank you again
it's all beyond ridiculous. Even airport personnel at anything other than major internationals don't go through all of this headache for a vehicle based radio.
Exactly. Sure, there are some additional details to sort (like call signs), but these can be addressed in a straightforward manner based up pilot cert numbers.
From the manned side, I'd rather you guys be on the freq with me. If you have a ROC-A and a license you're the same as any other pilot and it's mind boggling that this is an issue.
10 years ago we had a SFOC held up as TC and NAV Canada argued over whether we needed a ROC-A and air radio for an operation close to an international airport. TC wanted us to communicate over air band and Nav Canada said no. I even spoke with a NAV Canada tech who maintained their radio systems and he said it would be pointless from a technical perspective due to distance and equipment. Eventually all agreed on a phone call to tower and monitor the frequency. But wow, it took way longer than it should have to come to that decision. I figured by now everyone involved with rules and regs surrounding this would be on the same page. It's sad that after all that time there are still issues. especially when it's related to safety.
Wow...that certainly seems like an easy scenario to solve since the key stakeholder (NAV CANADA in your case) had a clear and simple solution. Defer to the accountable expert and move on... Jeepers.
There are oil field sites in Fort McMurray that have written procedures that require any RPAS Operator on their property to make "blind calls" at the beginning and end of each RPAS operation. Failure to do so is removal from site.
Thanks for the info Don. I've been using a cell app to monitor air traffic when I feel I am in relatively close proximity to air traffic BUT, even though I carry several radio licenses, I cannot transmit - hence the cell phone app. I've seen the same performances from ISED before where they have refused to enforce radio regulations , in writing, with a lot of evidence (recordings etc.). I sincerely hope their actual control function becomes more functional soon.
What’s insulting (to me) is that for the advanced test, the powers that be decided we had to be familiar with radio communications and their frequencies, among a host of other aeronautical concepts that have very stretched relevancy to 99% of actual drone flights. The added kick in the groin is that the current exceptions (emergency personnel) are given to the only group that currently has reported drone collisions with manned aircraft. It’s very hard not to feel like the regulators are not safety oriented, but manned aircraft pilot oriented and just see us as a nuisance they have to deal with.
Great exposé. This is what happens when process overwhelms purpose. ISED are demonstrating what happens when regulators apply misperceptions and false assumptions to the challenge presented by a new requirement. When Transport Canada has made the need for drone pilots to use aviation radio, in tightly prescribed circumstances, and a reasonable test case has been made, there is no excuse for this situation. I wonder who would be held accountable if an accident occurred because a drone struck an aircraft after it proved impossible to warn of an impending collision in good time.
The Drone Pilot would be held accountable as it is incumbent upon the Drone Pilot to make contact with the airfield regardless. In their response to me ISED stated I should make a phone call to the airfield . In other words, if you cannot communicate with the airfield you really should not be flying in the vicinity. They also suggested that I "monitor" the radio frequency for that airfield . I explained to the ISED that many of these "unmanned" airfields are single / owner owned and the pilot may not be communicating with anyone while flying around the field etc! Hence Don's explanation today. As a further note, I have not received any further updates or communications from either ISED or the Drone Pilot Assoc. since 2022.
Thank you, Mike! As we have discussed, this issue has a few twists and turns, but nothing insurmountable in more than a few meetings and consultations. There's no excuse for this two-year failure. (BTW, the 'Ken' who also responded to your comment is the 'original Ken' who raised the issue)
I've spoken to a couple of larger businesses that sell mobile radios to a lot of drone operators and they seem wholly unaware of this being an issue. A mobile unit is not a base station. With a ROC(Maritime), for example, you can operate a handheld VHF but not a land based station.
To get a licence to operate a radio, and if you don't have an airplane to tie it to, you have to register the radio as a "Base Station". One of the requirements in the licence application is that you have to give the co-ordinates of your base station location of operation, ISED then checks (and in my case) noticed that I was not operating from an airfield and that's what got this whole issue going as they then decided NOT to grant me a licence for a base station which was my portable had held radio!! Note Pilots with airplanes and licensed radios in the plane do not have to licence the handheld / portable as long as they are using the radio in the vicinity of the hanger/airplane as per their policy.
I'm not surprised. And its the same for drones. Anything that requires some sort of license/certification to operate should require that it be posted in retail operations, including online services. Very very few people know that you need your barista license to operate a coffee maker....oh wait...that's not until 2026.
Hey Don,, great video. I have always wanted to fly large Rc planes, WW11 birds of prey are my favourites. I’ve had one or two over the years but only recently started to learn to fly. I even joined MAAC, just before MAAC’s exemption was suspended. Now I have a 65 gram park special and no license required. I can fly on any soccer field, tennis court or baseball diamond. And yes, it’s a bird of prey. Call me old school but my model airplanes are NOT DRONES.
ISED needs to unf*ck itself, soonest. Drones are here to stay. They're not just toys or aerial tripods. They're also work tools, used in a workspace. Not every drone operator needs a radio, but the few who do should be granted access - on _their_ say-so, not ISED's.
While none of this “non-progress” is unsurprising,it’s still pretty irritating. I personally can think of a number of places I fly here in ranching country,that have private airstrips. It’s fairly common to be snuck up on,by very low flying choppers that are (I assume) looking for stock herds in the foothills. I don’t know if I personally would apply for a radio license,but I guess the point is moot since I couldn’t get one anyways!🤣😂
maybe they could allow a specific frequency for drone pilots to contact authorities when flying drones. this way there is no interference with pilot com. just a thought!
An interesting suggestion, but aviation radios have limited range, and no one would be monitoring that kind of specific frequency. At least one manned aircraft pilot who commented here agreed that we drone pilots should be on the same frequency as them.
where are we with radios? simple. I don't bother. I've long learned that you get to experience more success when you aim to beg forgiveness rather than ask permission.
Excellent video Don. I don’t know if I want to weight in on this subject or not. I do have my aviation radio licence as I did fly professionally for many many years. I also have my advanced amateur ham licence along with CW (Morse code). I can kinda see some of the challenges. To me I’d start with a phone call to the tower to see if they can accommodate a drone flight. Assuming they could I’d ask for an appropriate frequency. Either ground, active tower or outer tower. I should only need to identify as “Drone 1” or, whatever they request. When you have ground personal operating vehicles, in the proximity, of taxi ways or active runways, there is no reason not to accommodate us……I guess I did weight in on this subject…thanks Don
