What is Crew Resource Management (CRM) and does it apply to Part 107 drone operations?

Crew Resource Management (CRM) is the effective use of all available resources—people, equipment, and information—to achieve safe and efficient operations, a concept well-established in manned aviation and increasingly relevant to UAS operations. Under 14 CFR Part 107, complex drone operations often involve a remote pilot in command (RPIC) working alongside visual observers and other crew members, making CRM principles directly applicable. The FAA's Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge (PHAK) describes CRM as essential for recognizing hazards, managing workload, and maintaining situational awareness, all of which translate directly to multi-person UAS ground crew environments.

What is the role of a visual observer in a Part 107 UAS ground crew, and how should they communicate with the remote pilot in command?

Under 14 CFR Part 107.33, a visual observer (VO) must maintain visual line of sight of the small UAS and communicate its position, altitude, attitude, and any hazards to the remote pilot in command (RPIC) in a timely and clear manner. Effective VO-to-RPIC communication follows standardized, concise callout conventions similar to those used in manned aviation CRM, minimizing ambiguity during dynamic flight operations. The RPIC retains final authority and responsibility for the flight, but relies on the VO's observations to supplement their own situational awareness, making clear two-way communication critical to operational safety.

Why is assertiveness important in UAS ground crew communication, and how does it help prevent errors?

Assertiveness is a core CRM principle that encourages any crew member to speak up promptly and clearly when they observe a hazard, identify a mistake, or believe the operation is deviating from the plan, regardless of their role or experience level. In a multi-person UAS ground crew, a visual observer or ground team member who hesitates to report a concern—such as an approaching aircraft or loss of visual contact—can allow a small error to escalate into a serious safety incident. The FAA emphasizes in its human factors guidance that a crew culture that encourages open communication and treats all inputs as valuable is fundamental to reducing errors caused by fixation, task saturation, or complacency.

Communication and Crew Coordination for Multi-Person UAS Ground Crews

When the Federal Aviation Administration established Part 107, it recognized that many small unmanned aircraft system (UAS) operations would involve more than one person working together on the ground. A remote pilot in command (RPIC) might work alongside a visual observer (VO), a payload operator, or an entire ground crew coordinating a complex inspection or mapping mission. The moment a second person joins the operation, human factors — communication breakdowns, authority gradients, divided attention, and stress — enter the equation. The same crew resource management (CRM) principles that have made crewed aviation dramatically safer over the past four decades apply directly to UAS ground crews, and the FAA encourages Part 107 remote pilots to apply them as a best practice.

This article explains how to structure crew communication, how to assign roles and responsibilities, how human physiology affects performance under the pressures of a live flight, and how to apply FAA-recognized CRM tools to keep a multi-person UAS operation both legal and safe.

What the Regulations Require

Under 14 CFR Part 107.33, when a visual observer is used, the remote pilot in command, the person manipulating the controls (if that is a different individual), and the visual observer must all be able to communicate with each other at all times. The regulation does not specify a particular method — radio, intercom, or even direct voice communication may work depending on the environment — but the communication must be continuous and unambiguous. The RPIC retains final authority and responsibility for the safe conduct of the flight under 14 CFR Part 107.19, meaning that no matter how the crew is structured, there is always a single accountable decision-maker.

Part 107 also limits one RPIC to one aircraft at a time, and a visual observer is expected to maintain visual line of sight and communicate about only one unmanned aircraft at a time, consistent with the visual-line-of-sight and communication requirements of Part 107.33. These restrictions are not bureaucratic fine print; they reflect the cognitive limits of human attention — the same physiological reality that makes CRM training so valuable in crewed aviation.

Roles, Responsibilities, and the Authority Gradient

A healthy multi-person UAS crew begins with clearly defined roles before the aircraft ever leaves the ground. Ambiguity about who is responsible for what is a leading cause of coordination failures. At a minimum, the crew should agree on the following roles:

Remote Pilot in Command (RPIC): Holds the Part 107 certificate, is responsible for the entire operation, makes all final go/no-go decisions, and maintains situational awareness of the flight environment.
Person Manipulating the Controls (PMC): If someone other than the RPIC physically flies the aircraft, they operate under the RPIC's direct supervision. The RPIC must be ready to immediately take control if needed.
Visual Observer (VO): Scans the airspace and environment to help the RPIC maintain situational awareness, particularly for traffic, obstacles, and people. The VO does not have authority over the RPIC but has a critical advisory function.
Mission Payload Operator: On commercial operations such as aerial photography or inspection, a dedicated operator may manage sensors, cameras, or other payloads, freeing the RPIC to focus on flight safety.

The authority gradient — the perceived difference in rank or expertise between crew members — deserves careful attention. In crewed aviation, an overly steep authority gradient has caused fatal accidents when junior crew members failed to speak up about a captain's error. UAS operations face the same risk: a hired day-worker acting as VO may be reluctant to contradict an experienced RPIC. The solution is a crew culture where the RPIC explicitly invites challenge and where every crew member knows that calling out a concern is not insubordination — it is a mission-critical responsibility.

Communication Best Practices

Clear, standard communication protocols eliminate misunderstandings before they become incidents. Effective UAS crew communication borrows several tools from aviation's CRM toolbox:

Briefing: Before launch, the RPIC should conduct a thorough crew briefing covering the mission profile, airspace and weather conditions, emergency procedures, abort criteria, assigned roles, and communication methods. Everyone should have a chance to ask questions.
Callouts and acknowledgments: Critical actions should be verbalized and confirmed. For example, when the VO spots a manned aircraft entering the operating area, the callout "Traffic, northwest, low altitude, closing" should prompt an acknowledgment from the RPIC: "Confirm, descending to clear." Unacknowledged callouts must be repeated.
Closed-loop communication: The sender states information, the receiver repeats it back in their own words, and the sender confirms or corrects. This three-part loop is the most reliable way to detect misunderstood instructions, especially in noisy environments.
Sterile cockpit equivalent: During critical phases — launch, approach to obstacles, low-altitude maneuvering, or emergency recovery — unnecessary conversation should stop. The crew should agree on what constitutes a "critical phase" before the flight.
Shared mental model: All crew members should understand the overall plan well enough that each person can anticipate the next action. When everyone knows the flight path, altitude targets, and abort points, verbal coordination becomes faster and more reliable.

Human Physiology and Its Effect on Crew Performance

The FAA's Risk Management Handbook and the Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge both address how physiological and psychological states degrade human performance. UAS crews are not immune. Several factors deserve specific attention during multi-person ground operations:

Attention and workload: Visual observers experience a phenomenon analogous to tunnel vision — spending too long watching one area while other hazards enter the unscanned portion of the sky. RPICs should actively redirect VO attention using compass bearings or clock positions, and both parties should rotate scan patterns systematically.

Stress and channelized attention: When an abnormal event occurs — unexpected airspace traffic, a flyaway, or a system warning — stress naturally causes the brain to fixate on one problem. This is why checklists and pre-briefed emergency procedures are essential; they redirect attention to a proven sequence of actions rather than leaving the crew to improvise under cognitive load.

Fatigue: Prolonged operations, early morning starts, and monotonous hovering missions all degrade vigilance. The FAA recognizes fatigue as a significant human factor. The RPIC should build crew rotation schedules into long operations and establish pre-flight personal readiness checks using the IMSAFE checklist.

Communication equipment failure: Radios fail, headsets die, and ambient noise on construction sites or near roadways can render verbal communication difficult. Crews should pre-brief backup communication methods — hand signals, pre-agreed light signals, or a designated abort word shouted at high volume — before those conditions arise, not after.

Threat and Error Management on the Ground

Threat and Error Management (TEM) is a structured CRM framework the FAA promotes through its training materials. Applied to UAS operations, TEM involves three steps: identifying threats before they become errors, managing those threats with defensive strategies, and if an error does occur, containing it before it becomes a consequential outcome.

In practice, a pre-flight threat assessment might identify that a nearby school will release students in 30 minutes, creating pedestrian traffic at the edge of the flight area. The defensive strategy is to plan the mission to conclude before that time or to assign the VO to specifically monitor that boundary. If the error occurs anyway — an unexpected group of children enters the area — the pre-briefed contingency response (land immediately, activate safety observers) prevents the error from becoming a reportable incident.

Memory Aid

The PAVE checklist, while originally designed for crewed aircraft go/no-go decisions, adapts naturally to UAS crew coordination and is recognized in FAA risk management training:

P — Pilot (Remote Pilot): Is the RPIC current, certificated, and in a good physiological and mental state? Use IMSAFE before every flight.
A — Aircraft (UAS): Is the aircraft airworthy, properly configured, with adequate battery or fuel for the mission?
V — enVironment: What are the weather, airspace, terrain, and people-related hazards in the operating area?
E — External pressures: Is the crew being rushed by a client, a deadline, or competitive pressure to fly when they should not?

Walking every crew member through PAVE together during the pre-flight briefing builds a shared mental model, surfaces concerns that any one person might have missed alone, and distributes the safety review across the team rather than leaving it solely to the RPIC.

Common Test Traps

VO authority confusion: The visual observer does not have operational authority over the flight. The RPIC retains final authority under 14 CFR Part 107.19 even when a VO is present. A question may imply the VO can override the RPIC — that is never correct.
Multiple aircraft VO rule: A visual observer may not serve multiple aircraft simultaneously. A single VO attempting to maintain visual line of sight and communicate about two drones flying at the same time is inconsistent with the visual-line-of-sight and communication requirements of Part 107.33.
Communication requirement specificity: Part 107 requires that the RPIC, PMC, and VO be able to communicate continuously — it does not mandate a specific technology. Students sometimes assume radio is required when direct voice may suffice.
RPIC responsibility during PMC operations: When a separate person manipulates the controls, the RPIC does not hand off safety responsibility. The RPIC remains fully responsible and must be able to immediately take over, which means staying close enough and attentive enough to do so.
Fatigue and IMSAFE omission: Test questions about pre-flight personal readiness often test whether students know the full IMSAFE acronym (Illness, Medication, Stress, Alcohol, Fatigue, Emotion/Eating). Leaving out any element — especially Medication or Emotion — is a common slip.