ANAC RBAC 100 Remote Pilot common mistakes
ANAC RBAC 100 Remote Pilot · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating the 120-metre (400 ft) AGL ceiling as an absolute limit and forgetting that the RPA must stay within visual line of sight and clear of clouds even when below it, so candidates answer 'legal' for a flight at 110 m AGL flown beyond visual range in Class G airspace.
Candidates memorize one number (120 m) as 'the rule' and stop reasoning about the other simultaneous conditions (VLOS, cloud/visibility separation, no-fly zones) that RBAC 100 imposes on every operation.
What to do instead
For every scenario, run a checklist in order: airspace class and authorization, distance from people/property, VLOS maintained, meteorological minima (cloud separation and visibility), and altitude ceiling. Reject an option if any single condition fails, not just the altitude one.
Confusing the registration and identification obligations: assuming a remote pilot certificate alone authorizes flight, or that a drone under 250 g never needs registration, without checking the actual RBAC 100 thresholds and ANAC registration system requirements.
Candidates transfer habits from other jurisdictions or from hobbyist rules they heard informally, and the administrative domain rewards precise threshold memorization that they skipped.
What to do instead
Build a one-page table of thresholds (mass, registration, remote ID, pilot certificate, age, medical/self-declaration) with the exact RBAC 100 article beside each entry, and drill it until you can state each threshold and its source without hesitation.
Answering airspace questions using only the visual appearance of a chart (e.g., 'it looks like controlled airspace') instead of reading the class, floor, and ceiling, and ignoring that authorization from the controlling ATS unit is required before entering certain volumes.
Charts are dense and candidates pattern-match colours and shapes rather than extracting the published limits and the associated authorization requirement.
What to do instead
Practice reading airspace volumes by explicitly stating class, lower limit, and upper limit for each sector in a scenario, then state who must be contacted and what authorization is needed. Write the floor/ceiling numbers down before choosing an answer.
Assuming a flight authorization or ATS coordination obtained for one location, time window, or operation type automatically covers a different site, different date, or different mission profile.
Candidates treat authorizations as generic permissions rather than as scoped, time-limited, location-specific approvals.
What to do instead
For each authorization question, identify the four scope dimensions (location, time, altitude/volume, operation type) and check that the scenario matches all four. If any dimension differs, the correct answer is that a new authorization or coordination is required.
Ignoring wind gradient and gust spread when judging whether a flight is within the aircraft's limits, and treating reported wind at the surface as the wind the RPA will experience at altitude.
Candidates use the surface METAR value as a single number and do not apply the concept that wind speed increases with height and that gusts add to the effective airspeed demand.
What to do instead
In every weather scenario, compare the reported mean wind and gust value against the aircraft's published maximum wind resistance, and explicitly consider wind at the operating altitude. If gust spread or altitude wind exceeds the limit, the answer is do not fly or descend/abort.
Misjudging density altitude and its effect: assuming a cool-looking day at a high-elevation site gives full performance, without correcting for pressure altitude and temperature.
Candidates conflate temperature comfort with aircraft performance and skip the density-altitude calculation that reduces lift and propeller/thrust efficiency.
What to do instead
Always compute or estimate density altitude from field elevation, altimeter setting, and temperature before evaluating performance. State the effect on climb rate, hover ceiling, and payload, and choose the conservative answer when density altitude is high.
Treating mass and balance as a single total-mass check and ignoring that the centre of gravity must remain within limits for the actual loading configuration, including battery placement and payload position.
Candidates check only that total mass is below maximum takeoff mass, because that number is easier to find than the CG envelope.
What to do instead
For loading questions, verify two things separately: total mass within limit, and CG within the forward and aft limits for that configuration. If a payload move or battery change shifts CG outside the envelope, the answer is reconfigure or reduce load, not fly.
Planning a route by straight-line distance only, without accounting for airspace restrictions, no-fly zones, terrain/obstacle clearance, contingency landing areas, and the energy or battery reserve needed for the return.
Candidates treat flight planning as a map-distance exercise and forget that the plan must be legally flyable and recoverable if something goes wrong.
What to do instead
Build each flight plan in layers: legal route through permitted airspace, obstacle and terrain clearance, identified contingency/emergency landing areas along the route, and an energy plan that reserves enough for return plus a defined margin. Reject any plan missing one layer.
Responding to an in-flight emergency by focusing on recovering the aircraft first, rather than prioritizing people, third parties, and notified airspace users, and failing to declare the emergency or notify ATS.
Candidates identify with the equipment and default to 'save the drone', which conflicts with the risk-based priority order taught in the operational procedures domain.
What to do instead
Memorize and apply the priority order: people and third parties first, then other airspace users, then the aircraft. In scenario questions, choose the option that protects people and notifies ATS/others, even if it means accepting damage or loss of the RPA.
Underweighting human factors and CRM: assuming a single remote pilot can safely manage flight, visual scan, radio, and data-link monitoring simultaneously, and ignoring fatigue, distraction, and the need for a trained observer or crew briefing.
Candidates view UAS operations as a solo technical task and do not apply crew resource management concepts such as task allocation, callouts, and fatigue management.
What to do instead
In crew and human-factors scenarios, explicitly assign roles (pilot flying, observer, coordinator), identify the point at which workload exceeds one person's capacity, and select the option that adds a crew member, briefs the team, or delays the flight for fatigue.
Using uncontrolled or ambiguous radio phraseology (e.g., inventing call signs, omitting position and altitude, or failing to read back clearances) and treating the data link as a substitute for required voice communication.
Candidates learn phraseology passively and rely on the command-and-control link for situational awareness, forgetting that lost-link procedures and ATS communication are separate requirements.
What to do instead
Practice standard readback: call sign, position, altitude, and intention, with explicit readback of any clearance or instruction. Separately memorize the lost-link procedure (failsafe behaviour, notification, and recovery actions) and never assume the data link satisfies a voice-communication requirement.
Assuming the control link and its failsafe are reliable without checking link budget, antenna orientation, terrain/obstacle masking, and the configured lost-link behaviour before flight.
Candidates treat the C2 link as binary (connected or not) and skip pre-flight verification of failsafe settings and link margins, especially in urban or hilly scenarios.
What to do instead
For every UAS systems question, verify three things: the expected link margin for the planned route and altitude, the configured failsafe (hold, return, or land) and that it is appropriate for the surrounding area, and the backup/alternate link or procedure. Choose the option that confirms failsafe behaviour before takeoff.