Narrative:

I was working local control; the controller in charge (controller in charge) took a phone call on recorded line. The person on the line asked if he was [our air traffic manager (atm)]. The controller in charge stated 'no'. The caller then stated that the atm had told him to call this number prior to departing his drone. There was zero prior coordination with the controllers. The caller stated he would remain north of a particular road and be below 300 feet. The controller in charge asked them to notify us after they were complete with their operations. We found a binder in the tower; in the back of the cab; that has the drone procedures. We found the drone pilots authorization request that was denied. He was then issued a waiver that stated he was to remain below 75 feet. Based on our grid and how close to our airport this was going to take place; he should not have been granted approval in the first place.there was also an email between the pilot and the atm where the pilot stated he would be climbing to at least 100 feet and up to 300 feet on one. This is completely against the waiver the pilot received. The atm would've known about this. The flight path of the drone put them in direct conflict with departures and was especially a conflict for two aircraft I had doing pattern traffic. This was very unsafe. It would have been nice to know about a drone that's in direct conflict with aircraft in my airspace. There should have been notification that this was going to take place. There should also have been someone instructing the drone pilot to adhere to his 75 foot restriction.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: DAY Controller reported a drone pilot operated a drone in violation of their Authorization Request.

Narrative: I was working Local Control; the Controller in Charge (CIC) took a phone call on recorded line. The person on the line asked if he was [our Air Traffic Manager (ATM)]. The CIC stated 'no'. The caller then stated that the ATM had told him to call this number prior to departing his drone. There was zero prior coordination with the controllers. The caller stated he would remain north of a particular road and be below 300 feet. The CIC asked them to notify us after they were complete with their operations. We found a binder in the tower; in the back of the cab; that has the drone procedures. We found the drone pilots Authorization Request that was denied. He was then issued a waiver that stated he was to remain below 75 feet. Based on our grid and how close to our airport this was going to take place; he should not have been granted approval in the first place.There was also an email between the pilot and the ATM where the pilot stated he would be climbing to at least 100 feet and up to 300 feet on one. This is completely against the waiver the pilot received. The ATM would've known about this. The flight path of the drone put them in direct conflict with departures and was especially a conflict for two aircraft I had doing pattern traffic. This was very unsafe. It would have been nice to know about a drone that's in direct conflict with aircraft in my airspace. There should have been notification that this was going to take place. There should also have been someone instructing the drone pilot to adhere to his 75 foot restriction.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.