Drone Regulations: What to Know

As we reported last month, in mid-August the FAA released a blockbuster Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) aimed at enabling autonomous unmanned aerial system (UAS) operations beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS). The proposal, entitled Normalizing Unmanned Aircraft Systems Beyond Visual Line of Sight Operations, follows up on Congressional mandates and a White House executive order to enable BVLOS UAS operations in the National Airspace System (NAS).

EAA has extensively analyzed the rule and we will be submitting comments to the proposal on behalf of our members prior to the October 6 deadline. This is a complex proposal that will have implications for users of the NAS in ways large and small, and it is imperative that the community understands what these implications are and are not. Below is our summary of the nearly 700-page proposal, with particular attention paid to our areas of concern:

Part 108

The rulebook will gain two new parts: 14 CFR 108 and 146. The certification and operations of BVLOS unmanned aircraft (UA, or “drones”) would be handled by Part 108, and Part 146 would deal with the data infrastructure required by these operations. The NPRM does not change Part 107, the existing rules for flying small UAS within visual line of sight and frequently used by camera operators and other users of UAS within a localized area.

Like Part 107, Part 108 would generally be limited to 400 feet AGL.

The FAA is proposing requirements that all UAS operators obtain either an operating permit or an operating certificate to conduct their operations under Part 108. All UA used in BVLOS operations must meet ASTM standards (currently in development), a concept similar to the design and production of light-sport aircraft. These requirements are far more stringent than the current Part 107 rules and will be met only with considerable investment on the part of the operator.

The FAA is proposing a new traffic deconfliction concept for all Part 108 operations, known as Unmanned Aircraft System Traffic Management (UTM). UTM is a third-party management system, defined in the new Part 146, which allows drones to “see” other drones in the NAS. It is similar to what is already used by air traffic controllers for manned aircraft deconfliction, but it has no current compatibility with ATC technology. While effective at maintaining separation between two unmanned aircraft, UTM is strictly a drone-to-drone service. Drones will not be transmitting ADS-B data under this proposal.

Changes to Part 91 Right-Of-Way Rules

Of critical importance to EAA members, this NPRM proposes changes to 14 CFR 91.113 right of way rules, giving the right of way to UAS conducting operations under Part 108 unless a manned aircraft is equipped with either rule-compliant ADS-B or a proposed portable beacon. UA must also avoid airports, heliports, and seaplane bases, and must have secondary avoidance systems (“detect and avoid”, or DAA) when operating in Class B and C airspace. In all other airspace within the Part 108 operating regime of 400 feet AGL and below, a drone would have the right of way over manned aircraft not broadcasting a signal.

EAA has scrutinized this part of the proposal in particular detail. We are concerned for the safety of many operators, particularly ultralights, seaplanes, helicopters, balloons, operations away from airports, and others. We note that there is little consideration of ultralights in the rule, which is problematic as they are legally defined as vehicles and under current rules have the obligation to avoid all aircraft including UA.

Also introduced was a framework for a low-cost position reporting (or “electronic conspicuity”) system not yet manufactured or sold, thus raising questions about the viability of this critical system. EAA is pushing for any such system to be portable, with minimal power requirements, and completely anonymous.

Finally, we have significant issues with the practical day-to-day application of ROW rules with manned aircraft obligated to avoid a drone unless equipped. A balloon, for example, may well be incapable of avoiding a drone even with plenty of warning.

See-and-avoid has always been a mutual obligation, regardless of who has the ROW. We believe that UA should similarly “see-and-avoid,” utilizing DAA in all airspace.

Cost of Equipage

In the absence of detect and avoid by all UA, and likely even with this technology, equipage with ADS-B or the proposed electronic conspicuity system will be a safety imperative for many low-altitude operators. Expecting the general aviation community to shoulder the financial burden of equipage is essentially asking the community to partially underwrite the cost of integrating commercially-lucrative BVLOS operations into the airspace, or risk life and limb as an unequipped operator. This is unacceptable.

What is an Airport?

Part 108 operators must avoid aircraft “departing from or arriving at an airport or heliport.” The definition of an “airport” per 14 CFR 1.1 is quite broad, and would include private airstrips and possibly even backcountry landing areas. EAA is seeking an easy pathway for private airport operators or sponsors to make their locations known to drone operators, even if uncharted.

A similar issue applies to seaplane operators. Part 108 would prohibit drone activity near “seaplane bases,” but seaplanes often venture far from designated bases. The safety of seaplanes, balloons, helicopters, agricultural aircraft, and ultralights will need to be considered more carefully in any rule arising from this proposal.

The Good with the Bad

BVLOS integration is coming in one form or another, and soon. The economic benefits are simply too great for policymakers to ignore. While we have trepidations concerning aspects of the proposal, there are some important considerations given for the GA community in the NPRM. There is no segregation of the airspace – no areas where drones are allowed and other operators are not. This has long been a policy goal of EAA, and was by no means a guarantee.

This issue also renewed interest in “portable ADS-B,” which appears in this proposal as “electronic conspicuity.” While we remain deeply concerned about the Part 91 right-of-way rule changes in this NPRM as written, we have long heard from operators who wish to report their position to other pilots and cannot, as not every aircraft or ultralight vehicle can easily be equipped with traditional ADS-B systems. This NPRM, combined with other efforts EAA is undertaking with industry partners could finally bring portable (anonymous) position reporting to the GA world.

Finally, more investment in aviation can benefit the entire GA economy. There are certainly competing interests in UAS integration and we need to address critical safety challenges as the effort continues, but the investment and innovation coming out of the UAS world are investments in aviation as a whole. EAA and other GA groups do not seek to derail UAS integration, only to ensure that it happens with the highest regard for the safety and lives of those sharing the airspace with drones.

Members are invited to comment to this proposal on Regulations.gov. Comments will be accepted through October 6.