Ultimate Guide to Drone In A Box Ops(Laws, Tips, Lists, Problems, Companies)

Drone in a box

Interested in drone in a box operations? There are many questions surrounding this area such as:

  • How does drone in a box work?
  • What companies sell drone in a box solutions?
  • What if the manufacturer of my drone doesn’t make a drone docking station? Are there any after-market boxes for my drone?
  • What should I look out for when purchasing a drone in a box?
  • What laws apply to drones and their docking stations?

If any of those questions hit home, this article is for you. But we won’t stop there, we’ll discuss all sorts of various issues related to drone in a box so as to make this the ultimate guide.


Drone In A Box Terminology

If you want to conduct your own Google search, use these terms. (Keep in mind I have a list of companies down below to save you time). There are different terms used to describe things:

  • Drone docking stations
  • Drone and a box
  • Drone nest
  • Drone nesting stations
  • Drone hangar

At the end of the day, they are describing the same thing.


Different Drone In A Box Configurations

Before we go into the different uses, we need to talk about the different configurations. Some configurations are more optimized for certain missions. Take a look at the 4 main configurations.

Drone In a Box Configurations

  • Fixed Tethered – This solution has an unlimited amount of flight time. There are not any issues with batteries, swapping, recharging, etc.  It’s great for security in an area of interest like a front gate. But if it’s fixed, you might as well just put a pole in. But if you are at the early stages of setting things up, you could do a unit on a trailer that you just park at the front gate until the pole gets built.
  • Fixed Untethered -This is what everyone thinks of for doing infrastructure inspections or drone as an emergency first responder. It has great flexibility in where it can fly but it has battery limitations (temperature, duration, recharging, etc.).
  • Mobile Tethered – Multiple manufacturers have thought of the drone in the box as a modular system that would be used from the back of a vehicle. Icaros has a picture. Hoverfly also has an example here. While you think it’s all land-based, here is an example of a boat unit. You can put the unit on a trailer and deploy it. Have communication issues? No problem. You have a mobile antenna mast for communications.
  • Mobile Untethered- This has a nice advantage because you can just park a trailer at some location. Keep in mind that when working with mobile units, you have to figure out how you are powering this thing. The drone has batteries but the box is going to have some type of mobile power supply. You may only have so many charges of the drone batteries from the main batteries before you need to recharge the main batteries.

If you want to break things down even further, you could add the distinction of covered (in a box) and uncovered. Some of the tethered units don’t have boxes you put the drone in but they always have some box with the power cable and battery nearby.  I guess we should have called this article drone and a box.


Uses For Drone In A Box

Infrastructure Inspections

Florida Power and Light is using some drone in a box solutions to monitor their substations and power distribution grids.  This is starting to get scaled out to other utilities for regular inspection.

Construction Site Monitoring (Progress, Security, Audit, OSHA, etc.)

North Carolina Department of Transportation was given approval for this.

“North Carolina transportation engineers will soon be able to inspect and monitor construction sites more safely and efficiently using docked drones flown by pilots not located at the construction site. . . . Once NCDOT completes safety testing, it plans to place drones in docking stations at projects sites across the state and use the drones to remotely monitor and provide progress reports on transportation construction projects. “This FAA waiver allows us to monitor project sites from anywhere, anytime, without the need for drone pilots to drive to sites and set up drone systems to capture and stream images,” said Becca Gallas, director of the NCDOT’s Division of Aviation, which manages the agency’s use of drones. ‘That will save time and money and increase the safety of our employees by removing the risk associated with this fieldwork.'”

Drone As A First Responder

Imagine being able to put an eye in the sky overhead on crime scenes or fires for rapid situation awareness. The 911 call would come in. The drone box would open up. The drone would rapidly take off and get to the location.  Ondas Holdings is offering a solution for drones as a first responder. This drone can also be used for infrastructure inspections as well.

Another variation on this is attaching the box to a police vehicle or the Fire Chief’s suburban. The vehicle stops and the responder jumps out while the drone takes off and provides situational awareness back to dispatch who can appropriately manage limited resources.  Is the fire really that bad? Does that brush fire need another fire engine?  Where did the active shooter go?

Lifeguard & Shark Watcher

Drones have been used as lifeguards to drop life preservers to people needing rescue.  Here is a great video showing a drone in action.

New York State is buying drones to use for shark spotting.

While these drones are being operated not in a box, imagine these being installed and remotely operated fulfilling both functions. It could perform routine monitoring. You could also use the same drone for other value adds such as monitoring beach erosion, counting wildlife, turbidity monitoring of construction on the jetty, etc.

Defibrullator AED/Narcan Delivery

Research in Sweden showed:

In this prospective clinical trial, three AED-equipped drones were placed within controlled airspace in Sweden, covering approximately 80 000 inhabitants (125 km2). Drones were integrated in the emergency medical services for automated deployment in beyond-visual-line-of-sight flights: (i) test flights from 1 June to 30 September 2020 and (ii) consecutive real-life suspected OHCAs. Primary outcome was the proportion of successful AED deliveries when drones were dispatched in cases of suspected OHCA. Among secondary outcomes was the proportion of cases where AED drones arrived prior to ambulance and time benefit vs. ambulance. Totally, 14 cases were eligible for dispatch during the study period in which AED drones took off in 12 alerts to suspected OHCA, with a median distance to location of 3.1 km [interquartile range (IQR) 2.8–3.4). AED delivery was feasible within 9 m (IQR 7.5–10.5) from the location and successful in 11 alerts (92%). AED drones arrived prior to ambulances in 64%, with a median time benefit of 01:52 min (IQR 01:35–04:54) when drone arrived first. In an additional 61 test flights, the AED delivery success rate was 90% (55/61).

Now imagine a dedicated drone in a box system designed to deliver this.

Security

Ya, we all figured this one. You could automate a perimeter patrol around a facility. This is helpful for prisons, critical infrastructure, airports, ports, etc. You could also have multiple drones being operated and being managed by 1 pilot provided you have the appropriate approvals.

Military

The military needs these solutions to quickly pop up and take a peek at what is going on over the hill or to increase their communications radio line of sight.

Mobile Communications (Cellular, etc.)

Imagine a hurricane or tornado came through wiping out power and the cellular tower. Imagine a large fire that damaged the power and infrastructure. Bring in a mobile cellular tower for communications. People can connect with their cell phones and can call 911 for help. Ericsson has already tested a mobile cellular-network-on-a-drone.  CNET article said AT&T has these drones “staged already in warehouses, ready for use. ‘We have them on the West Coast for fire season, in the Southeast for hurricane season and in the Midwest for flood season[.]'” You can take these concepts and pair them with rapid-response vehicles. You could also have smaller versions you could throw in the back seat. See the Hoverfly VHA for an idea.


Laws For Drone In A Box Operations

Federal Aviation Regulations

There are two types of operators interested in drone-in-a-box operations: public aircraft operators (e.g. government entities) and civil aircraft. I won’t get into all of the important distinctions between public aircraft versus civil (you can read the distinctions here). I’m going to simply break things down into those operating under Part 107 and those operating under Part 91. This is also because some large 55-pound and heavier drones operate under Part 91 also.

If you are flying within visual line of sight, you don’t need a beyond line of sight waiver. You can see it. The below are being discussed in the context of being operated remotely from a distance or from inside a building or trailer where they physically can’t see the aircraft.

Below are just SOME of the issues, operations have other legal issues at times so this isn’t an exhaustive list or a complete list.

Civil Aircraft Under Part 107

If you want to do a drone in a box solution under Part 107, you will need a 107.31 waiver.  107.31 says,

“With vision that is unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, the remote pilot in command, the visual observer (if one is used), and the person manipulating the flight control of the small unmanned aircraft system must be able to see the unmanned aircraft throughout the entire flight[.]”

If the remote pilot is far away, they cannot physically with their own eyes see the aircraft. No viewing the drone through a camera doesn’t count as 107.31 says, “With vision that is unaided by any device[.]”

Additionally, if you want the remote pilot to fly more than one aircraft at a time, you will need a 107.35 waiver because 107.35 says, “A person may not manipulate flight controls or act as a remote pilot in command or visual observer in the operation of more than one unmanned aircraft at the same time.”

Other waivers that should be considered would be reduced visibility and cloud clearance waivers, flying over people and moving vehicle waivers.

If doing security, consider also a remote ID COA to not broadcast and a 107.29 waiver to not use an anti-collision light at night. Those things could potentially jeopardize the security drone’s stealthiness. Or you could just leave them on to let everyone know you are there like a hiker making loud noises to let the bears know the hiker is there. Or you could do both! Leave things on and then silently and with the lights off backtrack. :)

Civil Aircraft or Public Aircraft Under Part 91

If you want to fly here doing drone in box, you’ll need a 91.113(b) waiver because 91.113(b) says,

“General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft. When a rule of this section gives another aircraft the right-of-way, the pilot shall give way to that aircraft and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear.”

How can the remote pilot see the aircraft and other aircraft in the area when they are far away or physically in a building? They can’t. They need a waiver.

Export Control Regulations

Other government agencies have regulations governing unmanned aircraft.  ECCN 9A012 controls aircraft that meet the following criteria.

a. “UAVs” or unmanned “airships”, designed to have controlled flight out of the direct ‘natural vision’ of the ‘operator’ and having any of the following:

a.1. Having all of the following:

a.1.a. A maximum ‘endurance’ greater than or equal to 30 minutes but less than 1 hour; and

a.1.b. Designed to take-off and have stable controlled flight in wind gusts equal to or exceeding 46.3 km/h (25 knots); or

a.2. A maximum ‘endurance’ of 1 hour or greater;

Technical Notes:
1. For the purposes of 9A012.a, ‘operator’ is a person who initiates or commands the “UAV” or unmanned “airship” flight.
2. For the purposes of 9A012.a, ‘endurance’ is to be calculated for ISA conditions (ISO 2533:1975) at sea level in zero wind.
3. For the purposes of 9A012.a, ‘natural vision’ means unaided human sight, with or without corrective lenses.

You’ll have to dive into the technicals to find out if your drone falls into this control.  If you are a manufacturer, you should definitely figure this out as there are a bunch of additional controls for manufacturers.

If it is triggered, then there are extra headaches you need to be aware of when it comes to training, maintenance, repairing, interacting with the manufacturer, and getting things repaired under warranty.  You can mitigate the issues. You just need to know this at the BEGINING so as to be compliant.  These things might also influence your operating costs or the need for extra mitigations. I have an entire article on Drone Export Control Laws here.


Tips on Starting a Drone In A Box Operation

Fly the aircraft. I highly suggest you spend time flying the aircraft to see if it meets your needs. Either play with a demo unit somewhere or purchase/lease one for your evaluation.

Problem/Stingy Management. One roadblock I hear repeatedly is that management doesn’t want to dedicate so much money to an aircraft that needs a hard-to-obtain BVLOS waiver. You can respond that there are experienced people in this area who have had success in obtaining BVLOS waivers. I can jump on a phone call with your management to explain my experience if needed.  Another fallback option, you can hire me to file for a BVLOS and then purchase the drone and box once the waiver is approved. You do not need to own anything to apply or obtain a waiver. The drawback to this is you will be waiting 30-120 calendar days while the application is being reviewed. You are losing the benefit of the drone during this time period.

Hire me to get a waiver for 2 or more aircraft and boxes. I would suggest you pick 2 candidate aircraft and boxes. We file a waiver for them. You fly those aircraft for 3-12 months to get some real-world data on which ones you like. You then make the final decision on which aircraft model you will use for the fleet.

Another variation on this is we file for 2 or more aircraft depending on the environment. For example, if a company has assets in many locations, we could identify 2 or more aircraft optimized for their environment. While the previous example is where you have two aircraft competing for all locations, this is where you pick 2 or more aircraft best optimized for their environment.

After obtaining the waiver, go and find a client who can give you a deposit.  Find a client and see if you can get a deposit from the client to then buy the drone and box.  If that doesn’t work, enter into a contract and use that PLUS the waiver to obtain financing for the drone and equipment.  You could obtain a loan from the bank and have them review the waiver approval and contract of the customer.

Lease the drone. Obtain the waiver. Have an equipment financing company purchase the drone and then provide you with a monthly lease amount (which turns CapEx into OpEx). There are companies out there that do this. It’s an alternative to the bank option.


How Hard Is It To Obtain A BVLOS Waiver?

There are certain individuals out there who do have the knowledge and experience to have high success rates in obtaining drone in a box beyond line of sight waivers but for the average person with no aviation background, the chances of obtaining a waiver are pretty low.

Knowledge Requirement

A person putting together an application will need knowledge of what the FAA is looking for in a BVLOS waiver application and how to mitigate the hazards to a safe enough level. There are numerous hazards in a BVLOS operation and the important ones, the ones the FAA really looks out for, must be addressed in the application. The FAA will most definitely want you to answer questions about how you will respond to:

  • Your drone losing connection with your controller,
  • A manned aircraft entering the area,
  • A person or moving vehicle entering the area,
  • Your drone having system failures, and
  • Your degradation (voltage drop, losing GPS satellites, RSSI dropping, etc.).

Assuming you identified all of the hazards the FAA thought were important, you still must mitigate those hazards with equipment and/or operational restrictions enough to get to safe levels.

Time Consumption

A large amount of time can be consumed in putting together a waiver application. You’ll always have that pesky question in your head asking you “Did I do enough?”  This leads to people putting in too much information, also known as throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks method, and leads to way too much time spent in preparation of the application and the FAA reviewing the application.

The Best Solution

The FAA has published limited information.  Keep in mind that the data is a little dated but it is the only data we have. The data shows around a 98-99% rejection rate – for the total population. Here is the data backing up this statement. 2018 – 1% approved (14/1392) See page 5. 2019  1.5% approved (27/1813) See page 29.  For people who do waiver applications, and have been doing them for years, the success rate is much much higher.  For example, I have been doing Part 107 waivers since 2016 and as of 10/19/23, I have filed 169 waiver applications and have received 12 denials. Keep in mind that this is for a wide range of waivers (BVLOS, swarm, over people, 400ft+) so my batting average is different for each type of waiver.

The amount of time to do a BVLOS waiver is considerable. If you have the time to do it, go for it. It’s an educational experience. However, your time might be best spent on other projects and hiring a person with more experience. Contact me so I can save you time and money. :)


FAQS For Drone In A Box Waivers

Can I get one waiver for my entire company and every pilot gets to use it? Yes, this is typically the best way to do it as opposed to each pilot obtaining a waiver.  You want to figure out if you want to set up a specific LLC for this operating entity or if your current business is fine.  You would obtain the waiver for the business. You will have a responsible person for the company listed on the waiver. That person will be responsible for managing compliance with the waiver, the training of the pilots, etc.

How long do the waivers last? Typically, 4 years.

How many waivers can you obtain? There is no limit. You can add on overtime locations, aircraft, operations, regulations, etc. This is where it becomes important to work with someone who can keep adding on different types of aircraft, waivers, locations, etc.

How big of an area can we obtain with the waiver? That depends on your goals. The FAA has granted nationwide BVLOS waivers but they also can have considerable restrictions. You might want to go for a specific geographic area and ask for the least amount of restrictions to decrease expenses or increase operational capabilities. I would highly suggest you and I strategize about this on a phone call to optimize your expenses.

Are there any other benefits to this waiver? Yes, (1) use it for marketing because they are pretty rare, and (2) to go and enter into contracts with companies.

Can I combine waivers, exemptions, and authorizations such as over 400ft, swarming, Part 89 COA, etc.? The vast majority of the time it is a big NO. Most of the documents have language like this, “This Waiver may not be combined with any other waiver(s), authorizations(s), or exemption(s) without specific authorization from the FAA;”  In other words, you cannot get a BVLOS waiver and then an over people waiver and say I can now fly over people while flying beyond line of sight.

The manufacturer can file the waiver for me. Is there any benefit to working with someone else to file the waiver application? Yes. Here are some reasons:

  • Some waiver filers are interested in getting you a waiver with 100% reliability while I’m interested in getting you the least restrictive set of restrictions. The difference in this is huge. For example, I had a conversation with a person who obtained a BVLOS waiver. They explained they were sold an expensive detect and avoid equipment solution and they still had to use visual observers. I told them I could have obtained that same waiver using just the visual observers and that they didn’t need the equipment solution also. Yes, they received their BVLOS waiver, and the waiver filer had a happy customer, but they also had a more expensive bill to operate it. I focus on trying to find the minimum viable set of operational restrictions. If a client allows me, I’ll sometimes push the envelope to see how far we can go before we get a kickback or denial. Some manufacturers and waiver filers throw on extra restrictions or equipment requirements. Why not? They aren’t paying for it. They just want a happy customer.
  • People like using me as opposed to a waiver application filed by a manufacturer because I can obtain a waiver for multiple drones from different manufacturers. I’m not captive. I don’t care what drones you buy. Want to test out a couple of drones? Let’s file the paperwork for multiple drones so you can see which one you really want to commit to long-term. I also might tell you which drone I think is better.
  • I can file a waiver application without you owning a drone. Will one of the drone manufacturers do that?
  • I can help you obtain waivers for other waiver operations outside of beyond line of sight (over people, swarming, etc.). Do you have other needs outside of just beyond line of sight? I can help you with those.
  • I am more cost-effective when you start combining things or expanding operations as I know the manuals and can add on. This is a big problem people don’t encounter at first but later on because the 2nd application requires the manuals to be amended. That can get really time-consuming if not planned for.

How can we use this waiver as part of an overall low-capital investment strategy? Keep in mind you do NOT need to own the aircraft to obtain the waiver. You could take an asset-light approach by obtaining the waiver and then getting funding such as getting contracts (hopefully with some upfront money to buy the drone).

Can I use other aircraft in the future?  If you were approved for a specific make/model, you can purchase as many of those things as you want and fly as many as the waiver will allow. We don’t have the approval tied to specific aircraft serial numbers or registrations. Any make/models not in the waiver will need another waiver application filed and approved.

Besides the Federal Aviation Regulations, what else should we be aware of regarding these drones? Some drones that can fly for more than 30 minutes under certain weather conditions and 60 minutes are export-controlled.  See ECCN 9A012.

I don’t see my aircraft on that remote ID list. What should I do? Can we file for it? The FAA’s remote identification regulations are law now. The date for operators to comply and have their drones start broadcasting is September 2023. See 14 CFR 89.105. Operators have to either retrofit each aircraft, buy aircraft that can comply with remote ID, or obtain authorization or exemption from the remote ID regulations. Here is the catch for BVLOS, only standard ID aircraft, not broadcast ID, can do BVLOS. If we need to obtain a remote ID COA, that will be an additional cost. There could be a benefit to that in that your drone would be essentially invisible if people were trying to detect the drone to evade security.


Can you help me obtain a drone in a box BVLOS waiver?

Yes, the following information below is for a Part 107 drone in a box BVLOS waiver.  Contact me separately for a 91.113 waiver. Here are important points on why you should consider working with me:

  1. I’m a licensed attorney so the attorney-client privilege applies to our communication. For example, if you messed up really bad, you could tell me that. The attorney-client privilege was designed so you can have a completely open conversation with your attorney. It protects communications. Consultants, drone manufacturers, resellers, employees, and friends are not good people to chat with when you are facing legal issues as they can be compelled to testify against you at trial. They are witnesses.
  2. I have a malpractice insurance policy that is there to protect you. Think about it. If I mess up by failing to file something, giving you the wrong information, or doing something I should not have done, that insurance policy is there to help make YOU whole.
  3. People like using me as opposed to a waiver application filed by a manufacturer because I can obtain a waiver for multiple drones from different manufacturers. I’m not captive. Want to test out a couple of drones? Let’s file the paperwork for multiple drones so you can see which one you really want to commit to long-term.
  4. I can file a waiver application without you owning a drone. Will one of the drone manufacturers do that?
  5. I can help you obtain waivers for other waiver operations outside of beyond line of sight (over people, swarming, etc.).
  6. I am more cost-effective when you start combining things or expanding operations as I know the manuals and can add on. This is a big problem people don’t encounter at first but later on.

Here is some info.

PROCESS:

Once I receive the contract and payment, I should be able to file the paperwork in a couple of days to 4 weeks. A lot of this depends on the aircraft, the manufacturer’s documentation, manuals, documentation, etc.

If you are asking for DJI products, chances are I’m going to be very fast.

I’ll ask you to add me to your FAA Drone Zone account (I have instructions to help with this). I’ll log in and file the waiver application. You’ll be able to see everything. If the FAA asks any questions, you’ll see their questions.  The FAA will either ask more questions, issue a denial, or issue a waiver.

The overall time from filing to denial or approval will be something like 30-120 calendar days.

GENERAL:

-This is for civil aircraft operations. This is NOT for public aircraft operations. Keep in mind that government entities can choose to fly as civil aircraft.

-This is for under 55-pound aircraft operating under Part 107.

CREW RELATED:

 There will be one certificated remote pilot flying the drone from a location within the United States.

-The pilot will need to file a NOTAM at least 24 hours prior to flight.

AIRCRAFT CRITERIA:

Must have geofencing.

-Return to Home feature must not allow sUA to deviate from the normal planned flight path

-The aircraft must have a standard remote ID declaration of compliance listed here. https://uasdoc.faa.gov/listDocs  A broadcast module will NOT work. 14 CFR 89.115(a)(2)(ii) says that for broadcast module ID aircraft “The person manipulating the flight controls of the unmanned aircraft system must be able to see the unmanned aircraft at all times throughout the operation.”  Please find your aircraft and make sure it is standard ID and the serial number is within the range listed. If it is not, email me back so we can discuss it. There is the possibility of obtaining a certificate of authorization if we need a variance from this reg. That will cost extra and will cause extra delays due to the extra FAA approval.

-The sUA must be equipped with high visibility markings and/or anti-collision lighting to increase the conspicuity of the sUA to 1 statute mile for daytime operations.

-Ground control station must display in real-time the following information: sUA altitude, sUA position, sUA direction of flight, and sUAS flight mode, as described in the waiver application. This information must be available at all times to the remote PIC.

-Unmanned aircraft system (ground controller and/or aircraft) must BOTH audibly or visually alert the remote PIC of degraded system performance, sUAS malfunction, or loss of Command and Control (C2) link between the ground control station and the sUA. Note that some control stations might vibrate which provides noise. You make the final call if the vibration is loud enough to be audible.

-The ground control station MUST receive ADS-B signals.

-The ground control must display altitude, position, direction of flight, flight mode, battery life, ADS-B receiving status and C2 status.

-If the aircraft loses link, it must follow a predetermined route to reestablish link or immediately land at a predesignated location.

-All equipment must be in compliance with FCC regulations.

OPERATIONS AREA:

– Ground risk. The operations must be over an area that is sparsely populated or controlled access unless the aircraft can fly over people. If you think the area may be more than sparsely populated, we can discuss it. We may need a 107.39 waiver. It’s best to plan the flight paths over areas where there are no people.

-Air Risk. The operational area can for the entire United States provided you meet the criteria in the waiver manual. In other words, you may be able to fly to most places, but there are certain areas you may need to do more things or be restricted from flying in.

DELIVERABLES:

 Creating Manuals and Concept of Operations Document. I will create an operations manual that also includes normal and emergency procedures. I will also create a training manual that includes one written exam for the remote pilot in command and one written exam for the visual observer. I’ll also create a concept of operations (CONOPs), including a hazard analysis worksheet, and answers to all the Part 107 waiver safety explanation guidelines. It comes out to roughly around 130+ pages of paperwork.

Answering FAA Questions. If the FAA asks questions, to the best of my ability, I’ll respond free of charge. This includes amending manuals and documents.

Filing 2nd Application If the First One Is Denied. If there is a denial, I will rework the original request and file it again free of charge. If there are any questions, I’ll work on those as well for free.

FOR THE END GOAL OF:

One 107.31 waiver.

OPERATION’S CHARACTERISTICS:

For one location that is sparsely populated or has secure or limited access.

– The drones must be able to complete their entire mission with a certain distance of structures (buildings, towers, antenna, powerlines, etc.) and obstacles (trees). This will vary depending upon the location. Certain areas require you to remain low to the ground (50 ft.) while other areas you can fly higher.

-Daylight only

-For one make and model of aircraft. There isn’t a limit to the number of aircraft but they all must be the same make/model.

– No visual observer.

– The drone operates completely from a box.

-The box has 1 or more cameras that provide enough field of view to preflight the aircraft and the surrounding area sufficiently. 1 or more cameras and lights may need to be installed. Depending on where the box is located, we may need fencing if cameras are not adequate to clear the area.

COSTS:

BVLOS waivers are a pain to obtain, and it’s taken me years to finally dial things in and create the 100+ pages of material. Years of R&D. BVLOS waivers have around a 1-2% success rate. Phrased another way, they have around a 98-99% rejection rate. Here is the data backing up this statement. 2018 – 1% approved (14/1392) See page 5 https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/uas/resources/events_calendar/archive/Submitting-Operational-Waiver-Requests.pdf 2019  1.5% approved (27/1813) Page 29 https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/uas/resources/events_calendar/archive/Is_Your_UAS_Safety_Case_Ready_for_Flight-Leveraging_Research_and_Operations_to_Get_to_YES.pdf

Furthermore, you can go to his link and search for “107.31” to see how many of these waivers are even active. Look at the bottom part of the table and you will see it saying “Showing 1 of XXX of XXX entries.” https://www.faa.gov/uas/commercial_operators/part_107_waivers/waivers_issued/ 

The following prices are if you sign MY contract. These prices are good for the next 30 calendar days after you receive this email.

For one BVLOS waiver for one drone make/model and one make/model of box, I’ll charge a flat rate of 5,000.

If you want multiple aircraft or other regulations waived, email me and I’ll come back with a fixed price

FAQs

Why you and not someone else? I heard someone else can do the waiver.
There are multiple other people and sellers out there offering BVLOS waiver filing services. Here are some of their limitations:
-Some of these entities have a template created by the manufacturer that is static. It doesn’t change with time. I’m constantly updating and pushing the boundaries to have the least restrictive conditions possible. This translates into lower operating costs or more areas to service.
-The restrictions others propose for you are overly restrictive. The manufacturer or seller was just focusing on getting you an approval. You want the least amount of restrictions possible.
-Some of these entities sell you additional hardware and services for mitigating air risk. One thing I’ve seen multiple times is that people getting sold some expensive system that deals with detecting unmanned aircraft. I have never used one of these for my waivers. My waivers have a lower capital expenditure than others.
What are your benefits compared to the other waiver filers or sellers with a manufacturer template?
-My waivers have fewer restrictions than others. For example, many will limit the shielding to 50ft. above the ground. I ask for more. Some will do only shielding, I do shielding or VO ops which give you the flexibility to do different things.
-I can do multiple aircraft (DJI Mavic 3, DJI Matrice 350, etc.) so they can all fly BVLOS.
-I’m not captive to a particular manufacturer. If you have other aircraft from another manufacturer, I can try and put everything on one waiver.
-I can provide clients advice on all sorts of other area such as export law, economic authority regulations, and various federal statutes.
-I have insurance.
-Attorney-client privilege applies to our communication.
-If you crash, we already have a relationship.

Are there any other benefits to this waiver? Yes, (1) use it for marketing because they are pretty rare, and (2) to go and enter into contracts with companies.

How can we use this waiver as part of an overall low-capital investment strategy? Keep in mind you do NOT need to own the aircraft to obtain the waiver. You could take an asset-light approach by obtaining the waiver and then getting funding such as getting contracts (hopefully with some upfront money to buy the drone).

Can I use other aircraft in the future?  If you were approved for a specific make/model, you can purchase as many of those things as you want and fly as many as the waiver will allow. We don’t have the approval tied to specific aircraft serial numbers or registrations. Future aircraft will need another waiver application filed and approved.

Besides the Federal Aviation Regulations, what else should we be aware of regarding these drones? Some drones that can fly for more than 30 minutes under certain weather conditions and 60 minutes are export controlled.  See ECCN 9A012.

I don’t see my aircraft on that remote ID list. What should I do? Can we file for it? The FAA’s remote identification regulations are law now. The date for operators to comply and have their drones start broadcasting is September 2023. See 14 CFR 89.105. Operators have to either retrofit each aircraft, buy aircraft that can comply with remote ID, or obtain authorization or exemption from the remote ID regulations. Here is the catch for BVLOS, only standard ID aircraft, not broadcast ID, can do BVLOS. If we need to obtain a remote ID COA, that will be an additional cost. There could be a benefit to that in that your drone would be essentially invisible if people were trying to detect the drone to evade security.

Why should we pick you? (1) I’m a licensed attorney so the attorney-client privilege applies to our communication. For example, if you messed up really bad, you could tell me that. The attorney-client privilege was designed so you can have a completely open conversation with your attorney. Consultants, drone manufacturers, resellers, employees, and friends are not good people to chat with when you are facing legal issues. Anything you say can be used against you. (2) I have a malpractice insurance policy that is there to protect you. Think about it. If I mess up by failing to file something, giving you the wrong information, or doing something I should not have done, that insurance policy is there to help make YOU whole.

I’m also not captive to one manufacturer. I can help clients obtain approvals for different makes and models of aircraft.

What if you mess up? I have malpractice insurance for 1 million dollars.

How do I know you aren’t going to just take the money and run? Great question. Unlike most people in the drone industry, my conduct as an attorney is regulated. Here is my Florida Bar profile showing no disciplinary history and that I’m a member in good standing. https://www.floridabar.org/directories/find-mbr/profile/?num=109249 If I stiff you or act in a bad way to you, call the Florida Bar. They can then come after me and in the worse scenario, disbar me. I have skin in the game. My law license is your security.

Can I talk to one of your previous clients? My clients don’t want me handing their info out and it’s all confidential anyways. However, you can see on my Google Business Page the reviews left for me. No, I didn’t pay for any of them. You can also go over to regulations.gov and search the public dockets for clients I have filed exemptions for.

Have you been disciplined by the Florida Bar? Nope. You can verify this. Go to my Florida Bar page and see that it says I don’t have a discipline record.

How Do We Get Started?

Let me know and I’ll send you my contract.


Comparison of My Services to Others

Insurance

  • Rupprecht Law. I have a $1 million policy
  • Skydio  – ?
  • Censys  – ?

Provide legal advice

  • Rupprecht Law – I can provide legal advice because I’m a licensed attorney
  • Skydio  –  They are not a law firm and cannot provide legal advice.  See this article for more discussion.
  • Censys –  They are not a law firm and cannot provide legal advice.

Attorney-Client Privileged Communications

  • Rupprecht Law – Yes
  • Skydio  –  No
  • Censys  – No

Pilot Certificate

  • Rupprecht Law –  Flight Instructor (CFI/CFII), Commercial Pilot, Certificate, and Remote Pilot
  • Skydio  –  Jen Player is a Private Pilot and Remote Pilot. Jakee Stoltz is a Flight Instructor and Commercial Pilot.
  • Censys  –   ?

What aircraft?

  • Rupprecht Law – I can work with any manufacturer. I’m not captive. I work with whatever aircraft you want now or in the future.
  • Skydio  –  Skydio aircraft.
  • Censys  – ?

Area of Knowledge

  • Rupprecht Law – I can help with a wide variety of waiver, exemption, and authorization issues. I’ve done over people, BVLOS, moving boat, swarming, over 400 waivers and hundreds of exemptions for crop dusting and closed set cinematography for a wide area of industries. I’ve done COAs for remote ID to many different types of airspace.
  • Skydio –  Jen Player has experience in doing BVLOS waivers.
  • Censys  – Rob has experience in doing BVLOS waivers.

Can You Have A Fully Autonomous Drone In A Box Solution?

Most people think you can just fully automate your inspections where no person has to be in the loop.  That doesn’t work because the law doesn’t allow it. The law was set up to have people obtain airmen certificates to be pilots in command. There is no legal mechanism to have software ALONE be the airmen and pilot in command.

Creating some “software” to be an “airman” under the law creates a massive set of issues because who or what is responsible for the operations? The software? Who is responsible for the software? How does the FAA even validate that software or weave that into its framework of how the FAA manages safety?

Yes, we can heavily automate everything to decrease pilot workload but at the end of the day, it’s a pilot supervising those automations.

If you are concerned about keeping your operating costs low, find a drone in a box solution that is heavily automated and use one remote pilot managing 5+ drones simultaneously. You will have to obtain a 107.35 waiver for this if it is done under Part 107.  That’s how you drive down operating costs.  One pilot managing multiple drones operating sequentially or in parallel.


Things To Consider When Purchasing A Drone In A Box Solution

1. OpEx and CapEx Out-the-Door Numbers

You need to figure out the final out-the-door capital expenditure (CapEx). Here are some questions you need to answer.

  • Does the manufacturer charge a subscription for the software?
  • What will the concrete pad cost?
  • What will the electrician cost?
  • What will the legal approvals cost?
  • What is the main air risk mitigator? Is it a radar system? Casia G system? A human visual observer searching the sky? What are those training, installation, and ongoing subscription costs?
  • Does a parachute need to be installed because you will be flying over people? What will that cost? Will integrating that parachute to be remotely deployed cost any extra?
  • Is this aircraft export-controlled? If so, you’ll need to protect it and comply with the export laws that speak to how technical data is transferred, who can have access to the aircraft, etc.

2. What Aircraft Can Be Used For This Box?

Some of the box companies make boxes that can be compatible with different aircraft. The Hextronics Universal box works with the DJI Mavic 2 series, DJI Mavic 3 series, Parrot Anafi USA, and Parrot Anafi Ai. You may already own aircraft in your fleet (DJI Matrice 300 for example) and wish to just purchase boxes for an already existing fleet. This results in a lower CapEx.  Try and figure out how to use what you already have.

3. Can I Have A Fixed Wing Drone In A Box?

Yes. There is one company I have seen do this with a fixed-wing electric vertical takeoff and landing (EVTOL) design. Connect that with a good communications system. Boom you have a drone that can do 60-90 minutes of flying at great ranges. The only problem is going to be figuring out air risk.

4. Can It Swap Out Batteries And Sensors?

The Airrow box can swap out batteries and also payloads. Here is a video. This can be beneficial in certain markets such as the Oil and Gas industry where a company may want a drone to use a camera and also a methane sniffer.

5. Will The Box Be Future Proof?

Find out if the manufacturer is planning on trying to keep the box static and just upgrade certain parts as new aircraft or if the box is built for specific aircraft already built. Otherwise, you might have to budget more money later on to purchase another box whenever a new aircraft is acquired.

6. Are There Enough Sensors to Preflight The Area?

  • 107.15(a)- “No person may operate a civil small unmanned aircraft system unless it is in a condition for safe operation. Prior to each flight, the remote pilot in command must check the small unmanned aircraft system to determine whether it is in a condition for safe operation.”
  • 107.49 – “Prior to flight, the remote pilot in command must: (a) Assess the operating environment, considering risks to persons and property in the immediate vicinity both on the surface and in the air. This assessment must include: (1) Local weather conditions; (2) Local airspace and any flight restrictions; (3) The location of persons and property on the surface; and (4) Other ground hazards. . . (c) Ensure that all control links between ground control station and the small unmanned aircraft are working properly; (d) If the small unmanned aircraft is powered, ensure that there is enough available power for the small unmanned aircraft system to operate for the intended operational time;[.]”

7. How Accurate Is Its GPS Vertical Accuracy?

This becomes an important point when you are trying to keep your operating costs low. If you want to get away from the visual observer on site, then you need to figure out how to keep the drone close enough to infrastructure or obstacles. This becomes an issue if your vertical accuracy is not that great and you have to keep a certain distance from the tops of trees.

8. Can It Fly Over People or Moving Vehicles?

When you think of beyond line of sight waivers, you think of air risk. Yes, but if you fly beyond the line of sight, how do you maintain compliance with the regulations telling you to NOT fly over people? This is why I tell people there is a hidden 107.39 and 107.145 discussion in every 107.31 waiver application.

Sure you can say it’s closed access or extremely remote (rural powerlines and solar farms). That fixes things in those scenarios. But what about where there are people such as construction sites?

Roads also become an issue. You end up having to play Frogger.

Does your aircraft have an operations over people (OOP) declaration of compliance? I have an entire article on FAA Declarations of Compliance.  Are there any after-market parachutes that will work? Can that be deployed remotely? Parachutes on top of aircraft could cause issues for box clearance. Is the box tall enough?  Will the box be tall enough in the future for future aircraft and parachute systems?

9. Does It Have Standard Remote ID?

All drones that must be registered must have remote ID. There are only two types of remote ID: broadcast module or standard ID. Only standard ID can do BVLOS. See 14 CFR 89.115(a)(2)(ii). Before purchasing a drone, make sure the aircraft has a Declaration of Compliance from the FAA for standard remote ID. Do not just take the word of a salesman. I have seen this issue over and over again.  Find the Declaration of Compliance @ https://uasdoc.faa.gov/listDocs and read it carefully.  If you can’t find it, ask the manufacturer for it. If you don’t see it in the database, it does NOT have a compliant remote ID solution. This is important as many are saying they have a remote ID aircraft but in reality, the remote ID is not approved by the FAA. I have an entire article on FAA Declarations of Compliance. If your solution isn’t compliant, you can obtain a Part 89 certificate of authorization or exemption to fix this. Contact me if you need help with this.

10. Can It Stand Up To The Weather?

Some boxes are not airtight. Is the environment you are using it going to have dust, water, and high or low temperatures?  Will the box need to be airtight? If so, will that require it to be air-conditioned somehow? What is the flight time in extreme weather? LIPO batteries stink in cold weather. Do you have enough flight time when the batteries are around 20F?

12. Does The Drone Receive ADS-B Signals?

This is non-negotiable for drone in a box where you want to use the “shielded” type of operations and not have a visual observer on-site managing deconfliction of the airspace.

13. Does The Ground Control Station Have Audible And Visual Alerts?

Does the ground station provide audible and visual alerts of “degraded system performance, sUAS malfunction, or loss of Command and Control (C2) link between the ground control station and the sUA[?]” This is an important point. There are 6 alerts you are trying to find out about here. Most manufacturers will say they have “alerts” but do they have visual and audible alerts of all three of those areas?

14. Does the ground control station display enough telemetry?

Control station must display in real-time the following information: sUAaltitude, sUA position, sUA direction of flight, and sUAS flight mode.

15. How Well Does It Communicate At Our Proposed Ranges?

This is an important point. Certain radio frequencies are not that great low to the ground when you go farther out. If you are trying to do “shielded” ops where you fly close to trees or structures, this becomes very important. Certain environmental conditions can also really degrade system performance (e.g. Georgia pine trees). See my Fresnel Calculator to get an idea of why this is an issue. To ground truth this, obtain a BVLOS waiver and fly the drone out at those ranges. See if the radio’s RSSI drops off.

16. How can the radio frequency transmitter be configured?

Is the transmitter on the ground or can you have a pole you can transmit from that will provide a greater radio line of sight? Certain environmental conditions and radio frequencies don’t work well at ranges (see my Fresnel zone calculator to get an idea) so you would need to put the transmitter on a pole to have a greater RF range.  In relation to this, how are the antennae oriented for the operations? Antennas have radiating patterns so you would want to install the box in a way that allows the appropriate coverage and there are no dead spots. Does your controller have two or more antennas in different orientations with overlapping coverage?


Drone In A Box Companies

As you go through these, some make aircraft and boxes, some software, some just boxes, and some provide a service.


Conclusion

I wrote this article myself. I didn’t outsource it. I have a lot of information in my head (that was not in this article) and can do things faster than most. Time is money. Can you afford to not hire me? Contact me.

Drone Beyond Line of Sight (BVLOS) Ops: Problems, Laws, Tips, Lists

drone-line-of-sight

Beyond line of sight drone operations provide great time, cost, and life-saving benefits. However, there are legal issues with flying these types of missions as well as important considerations that operators and pilots should plan for when setting up and conducting beyond line of sight drone flights. People frequently ask:

  • What laws apply to beyond line of sight operations?
  • What should I look for when purchasing a drone to fly far away?
  • Are there certain things or features the Federal Aviation Administration wants on a drone for it to fly beyond line of sight?
  • How can I obtain government approval to fly the drone far away?

If any of those questions sound familiar, you are in the right place. By the end of this article, you should have a greater understanding of the problems and solutions for drone beyond line of sight operations.


Benefits of Beyond Line-of-Sight Drone Operations

Remote Inspections

There are many types of assets in the United States that need inspecting such as powerlines, railways, pipelines, etc. You can check for failing equipment, broken equipment, vegetation encroachment, etc. You can also monitor vegetation.  Greensight obtained a BVLOS waiver to monitor golf courses. If you really want to optimize operations, consider doing beyond-line-of-sight operations with a drone-in-a-box solution for fixed assets. You don’t waste time driving back and forth to the location. Check out my huge article on drones in a box. You can install the drone in a box at the assets and they can do remote inspections, perimeter security, etc. Unfortunately, drone in a box doesn’t work so great for other types of beyond-line-of-sight operations such as disaster response, where you have no idea where a tornado will touch down.

Better Economics

Time is money and flying a drone further and longer allows for greater efficiency. You don’t have to reposition the pilot on the ground.  For each foot out you obtain for linear inspections, the value increases 2x the further you go (2 miles out means a 4-mile diameter). For BVLOS over a large area, thinking mapping or drone as a first responder, your value is actually related to the area covered by the operations in a circle.

Greater Range for Smaller Drones

Visual line of sight is a distance limitation (a tether associated with the physical abilities of the pilot). Certain smaller drones, due to how small they are, can go beyond line of sight rather easily compared to bigger drones.

Emergency Response/Drone as a First Responder

Beyond line of sight operations work really well for first responders in situations like searching for missing a 6-year-old in the woods, forest fire fighting, chasing bad guys running around town, and responding to an emergency scene with eyes overhead to figure out what resources are needed.

Education (Remote Training)

You can learn to fly a drone and complete training missions by flying a drone remotely. Embry Riddle Aeronautical University has this offering. The idea is you could fly, from your home, a drone at a safe location to do certain types of training missions.


What is beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS)?

Well, it depends on who is asking.

Recreational flyers must comply with 49 USC 44809 which says, “The aircraft is flown within the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft or a visual observer co-located and in direct communication with the operator.”

55-pound and heavier drone pilots and government pilots flying under Part 91 must comply with 91.113(b) which says, “vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft.”

Pilots flying under Part 107 must comply with 107.31 which says,

(a) With vision that is unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, the remote pilot in command, the visual observer (if one is used), and the person manipulating the flight control of the small unmanned aircraft system must be able to see the unmanned aircraft throughout the entire flight in order to:

(1) Know the unmanned aircraft’s location;

(2) Determine the unmanned aircraft’s attitude, altitude, and direction of flight;

(3) Observe the airspace for other air traffic or hazards; and

(4) Determine that the unmanned aircraft does not endanger the life or property of another.

(b) Throughout the entire flight of the small unmanned aircraft, the ability described in paragraph (a) of this section must be exercised by either:

(1) The remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small unmanned aircraft system; or

(2) A visual observer.

I won’t get into all of the different pros and cons of each of these 3 versions. For purposes of this article, I will use 107.31 which requires (1) an ability and (2) the exercising of that ability.

Ability

There are all sorts of things that affect a pilot’s ability:

  • Buildings
  • Terrain
  • Vegetation
  • Low light
  • Sun in your eyes
  • Haze/smoke/rain
  • Failing eyesight
  • The size of the drone.

The last point is a very fascinating one. Assuming you have 20/20 vision and it’s a perfectly clear day, the dimensions of the aircraft plugged into a formula that is accepted by the FAA and NTSB creates the maximum theoretical distance the drone can actually be seen.  I created a calculator here for this. For example, a 9 inch cross-section can be seen as a dot at 2,578 feet.  When you play with this, you’ll notice that the bigger the drone, the further out it can be seen.

visual-line-of-sight-of-big-versus-small-drone

As you play with the calculator, plug in the dimensions of your drone. You should never fly beyond this number. All a clever FAA prosecutor has to do is figure out the location of the pilot and the location and the drone and plug the aircraft dimensions into the formula to say you were clearly beyond line of sight. With remote identification, this can be VERY easily done remotely.

107.31 doesn’t mean you can just see a small dot in the distance. You must be able to look at the drone and be able to “Determine the unmanned aircraft’s attitude, altitude, and direction of flight[.]” This also means 107.31(a)(2) prevents you from putting an anti-collision light visible for 3 statute miles on a drone and now say you can fly the drone out at night 3SM+ miles away because you can see the little light out on the horizon. This means 107.31(a) is a smaller distance than just seeing a little dot on the horizon.

drone-line-of-sight

Here are a few common situations that are beyond line of sight:

  • Flying a drone from inside a trailer where the pilot cannot see outside.
  • Flying the drone from inside a building where the pilot cannot see outside.
  • Flying the drone as a little dot on the horizon.
  • Flying the drone at night without position lights or where the position lights are so squished together they have no meaning.

Exercising of the Ability

107.3 requires the exercising of the ability by the RPIC or VO. This is pretty straightforward.


Aviation Laws for Beyond Line of Sight (BVLOS) Drones and Operations

14 CFR Part 107

We just covered 107.31 above which deals with operational restrictions.. 107.33 applies if there is a visual observer in the operation. If you are flying beyond the line of sight of the pilot, you need a 107.31 waiver. If you are flying beyond the line of sight of the visual observer, you need a 107.33 waiver.  107.205 limits 107.31 waivers from being “issued to allow the carriage of property of another by aircraft for compensation or hire.”

14 CFR 91.113(b)

This regulation applies to public aircraft operators and civil aircraft operations flying over 55 pounds. If you are flying the drone out of sight, you need a 91.113(b) certificate of waiver to fly BVLOS under Part 91.

49 USC 44807

This section of the United States Code (USC) says,

(a) In General.-Notwithstanding any other requirement of this chapter, the Secretary of Transportation shall use a risk-based approach to determine if certain unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in the national airspace system notwithstanding completion of the comprehensive plan and rulemaking required by section 44802 or the guidance required by section 44806.

(b) Assessment of Unmanned Aircraft Systems.-In making the determination under subsection (a), the Secretary shall determine, at a minimum-

(1) which types of unmanned aircraft systems, if any, as a result of their size, weight, speed, operational capability, proximity to airports and populated areas, operation over people, and operation within or beyond the visual line of sight, or operation during the day or night, do not create a hazard to users of the national airspace system or the public; and

(2) whether a certificate under section 44703 or section 44704 of this title, or a certificate of waiver or certificate of authorization, is required for the operation of unmanned aircraft systems identified under paragraph (1) of this subsection.”

This section is how the FAA is currently determining what aircraft do NOT need to have an airworthiness certificate (55 pounds and heavier operations under Part 91) and can be used to allow for BVLOS ops. If you are flying big drones, this can done under a 44807 determination.

49 USC 44809

In order for a recreational flyer to fly in a very deregulated manner, they must comply strictly with 49 USC 44809 which requires, among other things, “(3) The aircraft is flown within the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft or a visual observer co-located and in direct communication with the operator.” See this article for a complete understanding of all of the recreational drone laws.

14 CFR 89.105

The FAA’s remote identification regulations are law now. The date for operators to comply and have their drones start broadcasting is September 2023. See 14 CFR 89.105. Operators have to either retrofit each aircraft, buy aircraft that can comply with remote ID, or obtain authorization or exemption from the remote ID regulations. Here is the catch for BVLOS, only aircraft capable of standard remote ID can do BVLOS. An aircraft that is only a broadcast module cannot fly BVLOS while in broadcast module mode. We could obtain an authorization or exemption but with all the headache of doing that, why not just buy another aircraft which is a standard ID aircraft? If you NEED a COA or exemption for remote ID, contact me. That will be a separate cost, but it is possible.  14 CFR 89.115(a)(2)(ii) says that for broadcast module ID aircraft “The person manipulating the flight controls of the unmanned aircraft system must be able to see the unmanned aircraft at all times throughout the operation.”


Beyond Line of Sight Waivers

Different Types of BVLOS Waivers/Configurations

Waivers are very unique to their intended operation so you have all sorts of BVLOS waivers that don’t fall into neat categories. That being said, there are some “types” of waivers that we can discuss below.

1. Shielded BVLOS Waiver

Manned aircraft have certain requirements on how low they can fly to the ground. See 14 CFR 91.119. Shielded ops mitigate air risk by flying low to the ground or close enough to infrastructure or vegetation as well as some additional mitigations to be baked into the waiver application and waiver. For example, the drone can fly in the orange corridor near the powerlines and the manned aircraft would by regulation, 91.119, be required to keep a certain distance away. Flying close to infrastructure alone doesn’t mitigate for everything. There are exceptions to this for rotorcraft (see 91.119 again) and crop dusting operations operating under Part 137. For these exceptions, extra air risk mitigations must be baked into your waiver manuals and application.

beyond-line-of-sight-shielded-ops

The big benefit here is you do NOT need a visual observer or pilot clearing the airspace above. This is huge because it allows for extremely long distances beyond line-of-sight flights. This type of operation works really nicely with drone in a box.

2. Drone in a box BVLOS waiver.

The idea is the drone takes off and lands in a box somewhere else from the pilot. Read my article on drone in a box operations. The big benefit of drone in a box is the aircraft is already on location. You don’t waste time driving out to the location. You can have one pilot doing flights at different locations. This type of waiver works well when you mitigate air risk by doing shielded types of operations.  You can however have a visual observer on site that can be in direct communication with the pilot and use the VO to mitigate air risk when you need to fly higher than what shielded ops allow (you want to fly above the orange corridor in the picture above). So you have two types: shielded drone in a box and unshielded drone in a box.

3. Close by but out of sight BVLOS waiver.

North Carolina Department of Transportation obtained this type of waiver. The idea is NC DOT would be doing building inspections and need to fly out of sight and maybe underneath infrastructure for inspections.  The press release said, “‘Inspectors will collect images using the drone instead of a snooper truck or having to suspend the inspector from the bridge,’ Spain added. ‘They’ll be able to do these inspections quickly with minimal impacts to the traveling public, like not having to close lanes of traffic for as long.'”

4. First Responder Tactical Beyond Visual Line of Sight Waivers (TBVLOS)

These are temporary 91.113(b) waivers for first responders for certain circumstances.

  • The First Responder must already be flying under a valid Part 91 public COA.
  •  Only to be used in extreme emergency situations to safeguard human life.
  • The Pilot in Command (PIC) will return to Visual Line of Sight (VLOS) operations as soon as practical or upon
    the termination of the extreme emergency situation.
  • The PIC must not operate any higher than 50 feet above or greater than 400 feet laterally of the nearest
    obstacle while operating TBVLOS. The 50 feet above an obstacle cannot exceed the 400 feet above ground
    level (AGL) hard ceiling.
  • The UAS must remain within 1500 feet of the PIC.
  • The UAS can operate, during an extreme emergency to safeguard human life, TBVLOS in controlled airspace
    as long as they don’t exceed the UAS Facility Map altitude values which is a hard ceiling for these
    operations. This includes operations in controlled airspace where UAS Facility Map altitude values exist, but
    Low Altitude Authorization Notification Capability (LAANC) authorizations are not available (red grids).
    LAANC Authorizations are NOT required to conduct TBVLOS Operations.
  • Operations at night, including operations at night that are in controlled airspace below the UAS Facility Map
    altitude values, are allowed provided you abide by the standard provision for ‘Night Small UAS Operations’
    in your COA.
    Note: Emergency operations where you need to exceed the 400 feet hard ceiling or the UAS Facility Map
    altitude value will require a Special Governmental Interest (SGI) COA/Waiver from the FAA’s Systems
    Operations Support Center.

Read the guide here.

5. Special Governmental Interest (SGI) Waiver

While the TBVLOS waiver above was for first responders, this is for first responders AND other organizations responding to a natural disaster. FAA says:

  • Firefighting (Includes Wildfire Suppression and Red Flag Warning Area Monitoring)
  • Search and Rescue, Law Enforcement
  • Utility or Other Critical Infrastructure Restoration
  • Damage Assessments Supporting Disaster Recovery Related Insurance Claims,
  • Media Coverage Providing Crucial Information to the Public

You can do an SGI either as a public aircraft operation or as a Part 107 civil aircraft operation.

FAA Joint Order 7210.3DD further elaborates:

21−4−7. UAS SPECIAL GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST (SGI) OPERATIONS
a. Public UAS and, in select cases, civil UAS operations may be needed to support activities which answer significant and urgent governmental interests, including national defense, homeland security, law enforcement, and emergency operations objectives. These operations are authorized through UAS SGI Addendums.
b. Requests for UAS SGI operations are processed as either a COA addendum, modification, or a Part 107 authorization and granted through the SGI process managed by System Operations Security, and applied under the authority of their System Operations Support Center (SOSC).

To submit an SGI waiver, fill out the Emergency Operation Request Form (MS Word) and send it to the FAA’s System Operations Support Center (SOSC) email at [email protected]. If the FAA approves you, the FAA will add an amendment to your existing COA or issue a BVLOS waiver that authorizes you to fly under certain conditions for the specified operation. If denied, operators should NOT fly outside the provisions of their existing COA or part 107. Operators have the option to amend their requests.

How Hard Is It To Obtain A BVLOS Waiver?

Setting aside TBVLOS or SGI waivers, which are really just emergency BVLOS waivers, regular non-emergency type of BVLOS waivers are a pain to obtain. The FAA has published limited information.  Some data shows they have around a 98-99% rejection rate. Here is the data backing up this statement.  2018 – 1% approved (14/1392) See page 5.   2019  1.5% approved (27/1813) See page 29.   Keep in mind that the data is a little dated. We can find the number of waivers currently active.  You can go to this link and search for “107.31” to see how many of these waivers are active. Look at the bottom part of the table and you will see it saying “Showing 1 of XXX of XXX entries.” But that website doesn’t tell us how many have applied so as to determine the rejection rate. But don’t let that stop your plans. You should consider hiring a person who has been successful in obtaining a BVLOS waiver….like me. :)


BVLOS Waiver Example from the FAA

FAA has published some waiver examples. I have an entire article on 107 waiver examples.  You can head over there and get some ideas.


BVLOS Waiver Frequently Asked Questions

Can I get one waiver for my entire company and every pilot gets to use it? Yes, this is typically the best way to do it as opposed to each pilot obtaining a waiver.  You want to figure out if you want to set up a specific LLC for this operating entity or if your current business is fine.  You would obtain the waiver for the business. You will have a responsible person for the company listed on the waiver. That person will be responsible for managing compliance with the waiver, the training of the pilots, etc.

How long do the waivers last? Typically, 4 years.

How many waivers can you obtain? There is no limit. You can add on overtime locations, aircraft, operations, regulations, etc. This is where it becomes important to work with someone who can keep adding on different types of aircraft, waivers, locations, etc.

How big of an area can we obtain with the waiver? That depends on your goals. The FAA has granted nationwide BVLOS waivers but they also can have considerable restrictions. You might want to go for a specific geographic area and ask for the least amount of restrictions to decrease expenses or increase operational capabilities. I would highly suggest you and I strategize about this on a phone call to optimize your expenses.

Can I combine waivers, exemptions, and authorizations such as over 400ft, swarming, Part 89 COA, etc.? The vast majority of the time it is a big NO. Most of the documents have language like this, “This Waiver may not be combined with any other waiver(s), authorizations(s), or exemption(s) without specific authorization from the FAA;”  In other words, you cannot get a BVLOS waiver and then an over people waiver and say I can now fly over people while flying beyond line of sight.

The manufacturer can file the waiver for me. Is there any benefit to working with someone else to file the waiver application? Yes. Here are some reasons:

  • Some waiver filers are interested in getting you a waiver with 100% reliability while I’m interested in getting you the least restrictive set of restrictions. The difference in this is huge. For example, I had a conversation with a person who obtained a BVLOS waiver. They explained they were sold an expensive detect and avoid equipment solution and they still had to use visual observers. I told them I could have obtained that same waiver using just the visual observers and that they didn’t need the equipment solution also. Yes, they received their BVLOS waiver, and the waiver filer had a happy customer, but the person also had a more expensive bill to operate.  I focus on trying to find the minimum viable set of operational restrictions. If a client allows me, I’ll sometimes push the envelope to see how far we can go before we get a kickback or denial. Some manufacturers and waiver filers throw on extra restrictions or equipment requirements. Why not? They aren’t paying for it. They just want a happy customer.
  • People like using me as opposed to a waiver application filed by a manufacturer because I can obtain a waiver for multiple drones from different manufacturers. I’m not captive. I don’t care what drones you buy. Want to test out a couple of drones? Let’s file the paperwork for multiple drones so you can see which one you really want to commit to long-term. I also might tell you which drone I think is better.
  • I can file a waiver application without you owning a drone. Will one of the drone manufacturers do that?
  • I can help you obtain waivers for other waiver operations outside of beyond line of sight (over people, swarming, etc.). Do you have other needs outside of just beyond line of sight? I can help you with those.
  • I am more cost-effective when you start combining things or expanding operations as I know the manuals and can add on. This is a big problem people don’t encounter at first but later on because the 2nd application requires the manuals to be amended. That can get really time-consuming if not planned for.

How can we use this waiver as part of an overall low-capital investment strategy? Keep in mind you do NOT need to own the aircraft to obtain the waiver. You could take an asset-light approach by obtaining the waiver and then getting funding such as getting contracts (hopefully with some upfront money to buy the drone).

Can I use other aircraft in the future?  If you were approved for a specific make/model, you can purchase as many of those as you want and fly as many as the waiver will allow. We don’t have the approval tied to specific aircraft serial numbers or registrations. Any make/models not in the waiver will need another waiver application filed and approved.

I don’t see my aircraft on that remote ID list. What should I do? Can we file for it? The FAA’s remote identification regulations are law now. The date for operators to comply and have their drones start broadcasting is September 2023. See 14 CFR 89.105. Operators have to either retrofit each aircraft, buy aircraft that can comply with remote ID, or obtain authorization or exemption from the remote ID regulations. Here is the catch for BVLOS, only standard ID aircraft, not broadcast ID only, can do BVLOS. If we need to obtain a remote ID COA, that will be an additional cost. There could be a benefit to that in that your drone would be essentially invisible if people were trying to detect the drone to evade security

Are there any other benefits to this waiver? Yes, (1) use it for marketing because they are pretty rare, and (2) to go and enter into contracts with companies.


Tips on Starting a Beyond Line of Sight Drone Operation

Don’t buy the aircraft and box until AFTER you obtain the waiver.  You don’t need to own anything to apply or obtain a waiver. Waivers take around 30-120 calendar days to obtain.  If the drone cannot get through the waiver process, you shouldn’t buy it. I don’t think any manufacturer would challenge this.  Another reason why you should do the waiver first is my waiver filing service is almost always cheaper than the BVLOS drones. A waiver in hand is also important for convincing people to give you more capital to start the operation such as upper management, a bank, etc.

Hire me to get a waiver for 2 or more aircraft. Salesmen sometimes overstate the true real-world operational capabilities of aircraft. I would suggest you pick 2 candidate aircraft. We file a waiver for them. You fly those aircraft for 3-12 months to get some real-world data on which ones you like. You then make the final decision on which aircraft model you will use for the fleet.

Another variation on this is we file for 2 or more aircraft depending on the environment. For example, if a company has assets in many locations, we could identify 2 or more aircraft optimized for their environment. While the previous example is where you have two aircraft competing for all locations, this is where you pick 2 or more aircraft best optimized for their environment.

After obtaining the waiver, go and find a client who can give you a deposit.  Find a client and see if you can get a deposit from the client to then buy the drone and box. Always try and buy the drone last. If that doesn’t work, enter into a contract and use that PLUS the waiver to obtain financing for the drone and equipment.  You could obtain a loan from the bank and have them review the waiver approval and contract of the customer.

Lease the drone. Obtain the waiver. Have an equipment financing company purchase the drone and then provide you with a monthly lease amount (which turns CapEx into OpEx). There are companies out there that do this. It’s an alternative to the bank option.


Export Laws For Beyond Line of Sight Drones

There are numerous export laws that apply to aircraft. Here’s an entire article on export laws for unmanned aircraft that goes beyond the scope of what we will cover here.  Basically, certain types of drones, technology, technical data, and services are regulated because you don’t bad guys using them or learning how to build or use them better.

You can get in trouble for sending these items outside of the country as well as INSIDE the control for selling or allowing access to certain persons in the United States. You can even get in trouble for emailing covered technical data unencrypted.

We are just going to highlight SOME of the controlled items. You should do your own due diligence.

Export Administration Regulations (EAR)

The EAR controls Non-military “Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,” (“UAVs”), unmanned “airships”, related equipment and “components” as defined in ECCN 9A012:

“a. “UAVs” or unmanned “airships”, designed to have controlled flight out of the direct ‘natural vision’ of the ‘operator’ and having any of the following:

a.1. Having all of the following:

a.1.a. A maximum ‘endurance’ greater than or equal to 30 minutes but less than 1 hour; and

a.1.b. Designed to take-off and have stable controlled flight in wind gusts equal to or exceeding 46.3 km/h (25 knots); or

a.2. A maximum ‘endurance’ of 1 hour or greater;”

Certain autopilots are controlled under 9A012.b.3. There are other controls on the development, production, technology, software, etc. related to these controlled items.

Certain types of radar are covered under the EAR.

International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR)

United States Munitions List (22 CFR 121.1 ) controls aircraft capable of flying at least 300 kilometers away and their launching and recovery equipment. Certain types of radar are covered under the ITAR. It also governs technical data and the “defense services” related to these defense items. 22 CFR 120.32 says, ” Defense service means: (1) The furnishing of assistance (including training) to foreign persons, whether in the United States or abroad in the design, development, engineering, manufacture, production, assembly, testing, repair, maintenance, modification, operation, demilitarization, destruction, processing, or use of defense articles; (2) The furnishing to foreign persons of any technical data controlled under this subchapter, whether in the United States or abroad; or (3) Military training of foreign units and forces, regular and irregular, including formal or informal instruction of foreign persons in the United States or abroad or by correspondence courses, technical, educational, or information publications and media of all kinds, training aid, orientation, training exercise, and military advice.”


Problems With Beyond Line of Sight Flying.

Detecting and Avoiding Other Aircraft (Air Risk)

Air risk can be mitigated by:

  • Having a visual observer watching the sky and in direct communication with the pilot.
  • Having radar (air-to-air or ground-based).
  • Having a flight restriction (restricted area or temporary flight restriction) keeping manned aircraft out.
  • Flying close to structures, buildings, the ground.
  • Issuing a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) to manned aircraft can know where your operation is.
  • The drone or ground controller receiving ADS-B out signals from manned aircraft.
  • Broadcasting out ADS-B signals. Keep in mind that this is currently not allowed unless done under certain circumstances or with an FAA certificate of authorization.

Most likely your operations will need multiple mitigations.

Keep in mind that due to the environment, you may need to find an elevated position to fly from or use some type of mechanical lift (scissor lift, cherry picker, deer stand, etc.).

Ground Risk (People and Moving Vehicles)

Here is something many people miss.  Hidden inside every 107.31 waiver is an over people problem.   107.39 says,

No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft over a human being unless—

(a) That human being is directly participating in the operation of the small unmanned aircraft;

(b) That human being is located under a covered structure or inside a stationary vehicle that can provide reasonable protection from a falling small unmanned aircraft; or

(c) The operation meets the requirements of at least one of the operational categories specified in subpart D of this part.

107.145 prohibits flights over moving vehicles.  Most drones don’t have airworthiness certificates or Category 2 or 3 declarations of compliance.

If you are flying over sparsely populated areas, this is not an issue but if people are around, you may need to figure out how to fly certain routes not over people or obtain a 107.39 waiver.

One way to mitigate over people is with an ASTM-compliant parachute. Parachutes need to deploy and decelerate the drone to a safe enough impact speed. That takes altitude. This means heavier drones have a higher minimum deployment height. The problem is with certain parachute systems and the weight of the drone, their minimum deployment height is at an altitude ABOVE the shielded area.

shielded-drone-ops-and-parachutes

Keep in mind that there are different heights to shielded operations depending on the environment. So shielded and a parachute could work in some circumstances but not in others. For areas where shielding is low to the ground, you may have to search hard to find a solution with a low minimum deployment height.

Radio Frequency Related

Unlicensed frequencies in the United States have a limitation on their power output which means there is a radio frequency line of sight (RLOS). Typically, BVLOS happens before RLOS which is why most people don’t think about this. But when you operate in the BVLOS realm, RLOS is a big issue.

The transmitters also potentially are single points of failure for control. Jamming, frequency interference, natural obstructions, etc. One workaround is where the transmitter and receiver aggregate 4G LTE, 5G, local radio, satellite, and mesh frequencies to have the best level of reliability. See the Elsight Halo which is integrated into multiple aircraft.

Some small unmanned aircraft operate on 5.8GHz and 2.4 GHz. 2.4 has a wider fresnel zone compared to 5.8 at the same range. The benefit to this is when the aircraft is further out and lower to the ground, the 5.8GHz can have better connectivity than a 2.4.  Play with the Fresnel zone calculator tool I created to see what I’m talking about. Having a drone that can switch between 2.4 and 5.8 provides greater operational flexibility when operating far out and low to the ground (like with shielded ops).


Things to Look for in a BVLOS Drone

I would highly suggest you and I chat as we plan your BVLOS operation. Keep in mind that you do NOT need to own a drone to apply for or obtain a BVLOS waiver. I would suggest you hire me and we work on crafting some mitigations for the aircraft you intend to fly before you take the leap and purchase an expensive drone.

1. Is it standard remote ID?

The aircraft must have a standard remote ID declaration of compliance listed here. https://uasdoc.faa.gov/listDocs I have instructions here on how to read these declarations of compliance. A broadcast module will NOT work.  Please find your aircraft and make sure it is standard ID and the serial number is within the range listed. There is the possibility of obtaining a certificate of authorization if we need a variance but that’s extra headache.

2. Can it receive ADS-B in signals?

This isn’t a requirement for all types of BVLOS ops but for certain ones it is. Also, DJI products all have Air Sense which displays the manned aircraft on the ground controller. Multiple other manufacturers have this built in as well.

3. Does it have anti-collision lights?

Typically, you want to make the drone visible for at least 1 statute mile during the day. You can attach aftermarket add-ons. For a drone in a box solution, it must be built in unless you can have some robot stick it on to the drone.

4. Does the ground control station display enough telemetry?

Control station must display in real-time the following information: sUAaltitude, sUA position, sUA direction of flight, and sUAS flight mode.

5. Does the system provide enough warnings?

Does the ground station provide audible and visual alerts of “degraded system performance, sUAS malfunction, or loss of Command and Control (C2) link between the ground control station and the sUA[?]” This is an important point. There are 6 alerts you are trying to find out about here. Most manufacturers will say they have “alerts” but do they have visual and audible alerts of all three of those areas?

6. Can you elevate the ground controller’s antenna?

You can increase signal strength by increasing the height of the antenna of the ground controller. Unfortunately, some handheld units mean you physically have to put the person and controller in a bucket truck. There are some units out there that have transmitters you can attach to a telescoping pole.

7. What is the latency?

For purposes of detecting and avoiding other aircraft, it’s important to have a low-latency system. This becomes more important when you are transmitting over infrastructure or satellite.

8. Can it fly over people?

Go to https://uasdoc.faa.gov/listDocs and see if you can find a Declaration of Compliance (DOC) for the aircraft to allow over people. The DOC must say its for OOP (operations over people) and not just be a remote ID (RID) type of DOC approval. If you don’t have that, you will have to not fly over people. Roads also become an issue. You end up having to play Frogger. Are there any after-market parachutes that will work for this aircraft? Can that be deployed remotely?  Will the range of the transmitter that activates the parachute system go farther out than your main command and control for your drone? You don’t want to lose link with the parachute system before you lose link with the drone.

9. What is the out the door cost on the overall system?

You need to figure out the final out-the-door capital expenditure (CapEx). Here are some questions you need to answer.

  • Does the manufacturer charge a subscription for the software?
  • What will the legal approvals cost?
  • What is the main air risk mitigator? Is it a radar system? Casia G system? A human visual observer searching the sky? What are those training, installation, and ongoing subscription costs?
  • Does a parachute need to be installed because you will be flying over people? What will that cost?
  • Is this aircraft export-controlled? If so, you’ll need to protect it and comply with the export laws that speak to how technical data is transferred, who can have access to the aircraft, etc.
  • How much do the batteries cost? How many do I need to operate in the field? Do I need a gas generator to recharge them?

10. How Well Does It Communicate At Our Proposed Ranges?

This is an important point. Certain radio frequencies are not that great low to the ground when you go farther out. If you are trying to do “shielded” ops where you fly close to trees or structures, this becomes very important. Certain environmental conditions can also really degrade system performance (e.g. Georgia pine trees). See my Fresnel Calculator to get an idea of why this is an issue. To ground truth this, obtain a BVLOS waiver and fly the drone out at those ranges. See if the radio’s RSSI drops off.


List of Beyond Line of Sight Drones

Yes, there are many multi-rotors that can fly beyond line of sight. For purposes of this, I’m really putting here aircraft that were designed to be flown at distances/durations. Keep in mind there are some aftermarket gas generators you can retrofit with some multitors to make them BVLOSable. For example, I heard about some Freefly Systems Alta X being retrofitted with a gas generator from Pegasus Aero.

Single or Muti-Rotors

Fixed-Wing


Beyond Line of Sight Communications

Problems

  • FCC has limitations on the maximum transmission power. See 47 CFR Part 15.
  • FCC has been cracking down on people asking for experimental licenses to transmit over the limits in Part 15.
  • Certain types of radio frequencies may be more congested in certain areas than others (2.4 GHz near your favorite coffee shop).
  • Lack of infrastructure. Cellular is great but what about the middle of nowhere? What about in the valleys?
  • Certain types of terrain will cause interference.
  • Certain types of operations. See Fresnel zone.
  • Harmonics. Certain-sized plant leaves with water really do a great job absorbing certain frequencies.

Solutions

You may need 1 or more of the following:

  • Transmitting on 2 or more frequencies.
  • Telescoping pole to put the transmitting antenna on.
  • Satellite communications such as the Iridium satellite system. Iridium has a white paper.
  • Using dedicated frequency spectrum. The FCC has designated C-Band for beyond line of sight command and control for unmanned aircraft.  If you are interested in C-band, look at uAvionix and what aircraft have their equipment in them.
  • Operating in an area with infrastructure. Consider cellular coverage or if you are in North Dakota, the Vantis Network.

The Future of Beyond Line-of-Sight Laws

The FAA is presently working on regulations to allow for beyond line of sight operations.

The FAA formed an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) for BVLOS. The ARC issued its final report. Here is an article of the ARC report. The FAA published in the Federal Register asking for comments on certain BVLOS-related things.


My BVLOS Waiver Services

I’m presently offering service to help clients obtain a beyond-line-of-sight waiver (107.31 and 107.33).

PROCESS:

Once I receive the contract and payment, I should be able to file the paperwork in a couple of days to 2 weeks. A lot of this depends on the aircraft, the manufacturer’s documentation, manuals, documentation, etc. I’ll ask you to add me to your FAA Drone Zone account (I have instructions to help with this). I’ll log in and file the waiver application. You’ll be able to see everything. If the FAA asks any questions, you’ll see their questions.  The FAA will either ask more questions, issue a denial, or issue a waiver. The overall time from filing to denial or approval will be something like 30-120 calendar days.

IMPORTANT CHARACTERISTICS

General:

-This is for civil aircraft operations. This is NOT for public aircraft operations. Keep in mind that government entities can choose to fly as civil aircraft.

-This is for under 55-pound aircraft operating under Part 107.

-The operations area cannot be too “big” because there is an air risk and ground risk analysis to this waiver. For example, if you are flying in middle-of-nowhere Kansas with few people and little air traffic around, we can ask for a pretty good size area (1-10 counties in size?) For powerlines or similar fixed assets, we can attempt 50-100 miles. For more congested areas such as many locations east of the Mississippi river, we may have to scope the operations area more narrowly. If you ask for too big of an area, the FAA analyst will say it’s too big and do it over so they can review it. Remember that there is no limit to the number of waivers you can obtain. It’s best to go and obtain a waiver application that is appropriate to the air and ground risk in the area and get the win. You will then see what I filed, and you can then file for more areas. Note this contract is only for one application being filed by me.  Let me give you two scenarios. Scenario 1. If you ask for too big of an area and are denied 60 days later, you then refile and maybe get approval 60 days later. That’s 120 days to get one area. Scenario 2. If you go with my strategy of filing for a smaller appropriate area and obtain approval 60 calendar days later, you end up coming out ahead by 60 days.  If you filed right away a second application upon approval of the first, at 120 days you end up with potentially more than double the area. You end up with more area and an extra 60 days to market your services and enter contracts with clients. Smaller is better when it comes to waiver filing strategy. Basically, tell me what you want and I’ll see how big of an area I can obtain on the first shot.

Aircraft:

-Only 1 make and model of aircraft. There isn’t a limit to the number of aircraft but they all must be the same make/model.

-The aircraft must have a standard remote ID declaration of compliance listed here. https://uasdoc.faa.gov/listDocs  A broadcast module will NOT work. 14 CFR 89.115(a)(2)(ii) says that for broadcast module ID aircraft “The person manipulating the flight controls of the unmanned aircraft system must be able to see the unmanned aircraft at all times throughout the operation.”  Please find your aircraft and make sure it is standard ID and the serial number is within the range listed. If it is not, email me back so we can discuss it. There is the possibility of obtaining a certificate of authorization if we need a variance.

– The drone must be equipped with high visibility markings and lighting to increase the conspicuity of the sUA to 3 statute miles. If you need, you can buy aftermarket anti-collision lighting and reflective tape to put onto the drone.

– Ground control station must display in real-time the following information: sUA altitude, sUA position, sUA direction of flight, and sUAS flight mode. This information must be available at all times to the remote PIC.

-Unmanned aircraft system (ground controller and/or aircraft) must audibly and visually alert the remote PIC of degraded system performance, sUAS malfunction, or loss of Command and Control (C2) link between the ground control station and the sUA. Note that some control stations might vibrate which provides noise. You make the final call if the vibration is loud enough to be audible.

Crew Related:

-Each aircraft must have 1 remote pilot and at least 1 visual observer dedicated to that aircraft ONLY. No RPIC or VO for multiple aircraft.

– Daylight only.

-The RPIC and VO must be able to see the airspace where non-participating aircraft might be flying. This means in middle-of-nowhere Kansas with no trees you could just have the RPIC and VO standing on the ground and looking for crop dusters flying low to the ground. If you are operating in a forested area, you may need to find an elevated area (e.g. top of a hill), stand on top of the truck, get on a latter, or operate from a cherry picker so as to get the RPIC and VO high enough to see the airspace. The RPIC and VO must be able to see at least a 2 statute mile radius of airspace around where the drone will be.

-If communication between the VO and the remote PIC will occur by an electronic device, as opposed to just verbally: a. The device must be continuous full-duplex, b. The remote PIC must be able to use the device hands-free, and c. There must be a reliable backup communication method. Some just choose to co-locate the RPIC and VO and they can just verbally communicate which eliminated all of this.

– Crew must file a NOTAM at least 24 hours prior to flight.

Operations Area:

– Ground risk. The operations must be over an area that is sparsely populated or controlled access unless the aircraft can fly over people. If you think the area may be more than sparsely populated, message me and we can discuss it. We may need a 107.39 waiver.

-Air Risk. The operation can only be for a specific area. We can’t get nationwide approval. The reason is the FAA analyst needs to analyze that area for airspace and ground risk.  After 6 months or more of operating safely, we could MAYBE attempt a larger area or nationwide. We can discuss that later, but we need to get our foot in the door first. The area we want to fly must be beyond the following limits: 5 nautical miles from a towered airport; 3 nautical miles from a non-towered airport with instrument approach procedure; or 2 nautical miles from a non-towered airport, heliport, glider port, seaport without instrument approach procedure as shown in the Chart Supplement. If it is not in the Chart Supplement, it doesn’t count which many of those little no-name airports do NOT matter.

Deliverables:

Creating Manuals and Concept of Operations Document. I will create an operations manual that also includes normal and emergency procedures. I will also create a training manual that includes one written exam for the remote pilot in command and one written exam for the visual observer. I’ll also create a concept of operations (CONOPs), including a hazard analysis worksheet, and answers to all the Part 107 waiver safety explanation guidelines. It comes out to roughly around 145-165 pages of paperwork.

Answering FAA Questions. If the FAA asks questions, to the best of my ability, I’ll respond free of charge. This includes amending manuals and documents.

Filing 2nd Application If the First One Is Denied. If there is a denial, I will rework the original request and file it again free of charge. If there are any questions, I’ll work on those as well for free.

Cost:

For now, I am doing a fixed price of 10,000 if I have never worked on the aircraft before. I can do 5,000 for aircraft I have worked on before. So for example, I can do a BVLOS waiver for 5,000 out the door for the Matrice 300 and Mavic 3. The reason for the higher cost for newer aircraft is I have to read up a bunch on the aircraft and find out all sorts of technical issues.  Remember, that price also includes following up with the FAA and refiling a 2nd time if the first time application is denied.

FAQs:

Wow. You seem pretty pricey. Why the high cost? It’s pretty simple. BVLOS waivers are a pain to get and it’s taken me years to finally dial things in and create the 100+ pages of material. Years of R&D. BVLOS waivers have around a 1-2% success rate.  Here is the data backing up this statement. 2018 – 1% approved (14/1392) See page 5 https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/uas/resources/events_calendar/archive/Submitting-Operational-Waiver-Requests.pdf 2019  1.5% approved (27/1813) Page 29 https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/uas/resources/events_calendar/archive/Is_Your_UAS_Safety_Case_Ready_for_Flight-Leveraging_Research_and_Operations_to_Get_to_YES.pdf It’s free to file for a BVLOS waiver. Feel free to go ahead and take a shot. Get some denials and you’ll then appreciate the problems I had to solve.   Furthermore, you can go to his link  and search for “107.31” to see how many of these waivers are even active. Look at the bottom part of the table and you will see it saying “Showing 1 of XXX of XXX entries.” https://www.faa.gov/uas/commercial_operators/part_107_waivers/waivers_issued/ 

Are there any other benefits to this waiver? Yes, (1) use it for marketing because they are pretty rare, and (2) to go and enter into contracts with companies.

How can we use this waiver as part of an overall low-capital investment strategy? Keep in mind you do NOT need to own the aircraft to obtain the waiver. You could take an asset-light approach by obtaining the waiver and then getting contracts (hopefully with some upfront money to buy the drone). After the contract is entered into with the customer, you could choose to maybe hire as an employee a person who already owns the drone and enter into a lease with them to lease their drone for your BVLOS operations. You could also choose to finance a drone from some of the drone resellers out there. These are all ideas for keeping your costs low.

How far away can the drone fly from the remote pilot? Normally, it’s limited by your radio frequency system.

Do I need a visual observer for every flight? No. We will apply so you have the option to use a visual observer for areas higher up (typically 50-400ft AGL) not close to the ground, but for areas close to the ground and structures, you can fly without a visual observer.

Can I use other aircraft in the future?  If you were apperoved for a specific make/model, you can purchase as many of those things as you want and fly as many as the waiver will allow. We don’t have the approval tied to specific aircraft serial numbers or registrations. Future aircraft will need another waiver application filed and approved.

Besides the Federal Aviation Regulations, what else should we be aware of regarding these drones? Some drones that can fly for more than 30 minutes under certain weather conditions and 60 minutes are export controlled.  See ECCN 9A012.

I don’t see my aircraft on that remote ID list. What should I do? Can we file for it? The FAA’s remote identification regulations are law now. The date for operators to comply and have their drones start broadcasting is September 2023. See 14 CFR 89.105. Operators have to either retrofit each aircraft, buy aircraft that can comply with remote ID, or obtain an authorization or exemption from the remote ID regulations. Here is the catch for BVLOS, only standard ID aircraft, not broadcast ID, can do BVLOS. We could obtain an authorization or exemption but with all the headache of doing that, why not just buy another aircraft which is a standard ID aircraft? If you NEED a COA or exemption for remote ID, contact me. That will be a separate cost, but it is possible.

Why should we pick you? (1) I’m a licensed attorney so the attorney-client privilege applies to our communication. For example, if you messed up really bad, you can tell me that. The attorney-client privilege was designed so you can have a completely open conversation with your attorney. Consultants, drone manufacturers, resellers, employees, and friends are not good people to chat with when you are facing legal issues. Anything you say can be used against you. (2) I have a malpractice insurance policy that is there to protect you. Think about it. If I mess up by failing to file something, giving you the wrong information, or doing something I should not have done, that insurance policy is there to help make you whole.

I know of a company or seller that does these waivers. Why are you better? I’m constantly pushing the envelope and asking for less and less restrictions so my customers have the best waiver in terms of lower operating costs, lower capital costs, or fewer operational restrictions.  Just to give you an example, one company out there files for BVLOS waivers. They require the customer to use a particular ground unit to clear the airspace. I have never used this equipment and by the people going with the other company, they end up spending 10,000+ more than me. I sell waiver services, not equipment and stuff. Another example, is some manufacturers put out templates for their sellers. These templates are restrictive and you can get better restrictions. Most people don’t know this. You are stuck with these more restrictive conditions.

What if you mess up? I have malpractice insurance.

How do I know you aren’t going to just take the money and run? Great question. Unlike most people in the drone industry, my conduct as an attorney is regulated. Here is my Florida Bar profile showing no disciplinary history and that I’m a member in good standing. https://www.floridabar.org/directories/find-mbr/profile/?num=109249 If I stiff you or act in a bad way to you, call the Florida Bar. They can then come after me and in the worse scenario, disbar me. I have skin in the game. My law license is your security.

Can I talk to one of your previous clients? My clients don’t want me handing their info out and it’s all confidential anyways. However, you can see on my Google Business Page the reviews left for me. I have a 5 Star rating with 93 reviews. No, I didn’t pay for any of them. You can also go over to regulations.gov and search the public dockets for clients I have filed exemptions for.

I want to see what the typical waiver terms and conditions will look like. Can you show them to me? I love transparency. I don’t want to be a used drone salesman and keep things hidden. In the back of the contract list the typical terms and conditions you are most likely to receive.

Have you been disciplined by the Florida Bar? Nope. You can verify this. Go to my Florida Bar page and see that it says I don’t have a discipline record.

How Do We Get Started?

Email and we’ll get started. :)


Comparison of My Services to Others

Insurance

  • Rupprecht Law. I have a $1 million policy
  • Skydio  – ?
  • Censys  – ?

Provide legal advice

  • Rupprecht Law – I can provide legal advice because I’m a licensed attorney
  • Skydio  –  They are not a law firm and cannot provide legal advice.  See this article for more discussion.
  • Censys –  They are not a law firm and cannot provide legal advice.

Attorney-Client Privileged Communications

  • Rupprecht Law – Yes
  • Skydio  –  No
  • Censys  – No

Pilot Certificate

  • Rupprecht Law –  Flight Instructor (CFI/CFII), Commercial Pilot, Certificate, and Remote Pilot
  • Skydio  –  Jakee Stoltz is a Flight Instructor (CFI/CFII), Commercial Pilot, Certificate, and Remote Pilot. Jen Player is a Private Pilot and Remote Pilot
  • Censys  –   ?

What aircraft?

  • Rupprecht Law – I can work with any manufacturer. I’m not captive. I work with whatever aircraft you want now or in the future.
  • Skydio  –  ?
  • Censys  – ?

Area of Knowledge

  • Rupprecht Law – I can help with a wide variety of waiver, exemption, and authorization issues. I’ve done over people, BVLOS, moving boat, swarming, over 400 waivers and hundreds of exemptions for crop dusting and closed set cinematography for a wide area of industries. I’ve done COAs for remote ID to many different types of airspace.
  • Skydio –  ?
  • Censys  – ?

Conclusion

I wrote this article myself. I didn’t outsource it. I have a lot of information in my head (that was not in this article) and can do things faster than most. Time is money. Can you afford to not hire me? Contact me.

 


The Part 108 Proposal: Rulemaking Committee Issues Final Report on Beyond Visual-Line-of-Sight Drone Operations

by Trevor Simoneau

Dramatic changes are coming to drone operations. The highly anticipated concept of beyond visual line-of-sight (BVLOS) drone flying may finally become a reality. An Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) has issued a final report about the topic, which includes recommendations for rulemaking. At this point, the BVLOS drone operations have made it through the first regulatory hurdle.

The purpose of this article is to highlight specifically intriguing recommendations made by the ARC to the FAA and provide analysis of some of the proposed regulatory text of what might possibly become “Part 108.”2

Download and read the complete report here.

Initial Review

In June 2021, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) formed an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) to address the burgeoning issue of beyond visual line-of-sight (BVLOS) uncrewed aircraft system (UAS) operations.[1] The primary goal of the committee was to “provide recommendations to the FAA for performance-based regulatory requirements to normalize safe, scalable, economically viable, and environmentally advantageous UAS BVLOS operations that are not under positive air traffic control (ATC).”[2]

This purpose statement outlines four key pillars of concern the FAA has chosen to focus on with respect to BLVOS UAS operations: economy, safety, environment, and equity.[3] On March 10, 2022, the ARC issued their final report. Amounting to 381 pages in total, the report contains a myriad of recommendations, including a framework for the FAA to commence rulemaking procedures to establish new “Part 108” regulations, which would govern BVLOS UAS operations.

The report divides the ARC’s recommendations to the FAA into seven categories:[4]

  • Air & Ground Risk Recommendations
  • Flight Rules Recommendations
  • Aircraft & Systems Recommendations
  • Operator Qualifications Recommendations
  • Third Party Services Recommendations
  • Environmental Recommendations
  • General Recommendations

The report also proposes a new regulatory framework, 14 C.F.R. Part 108.[5] The ARC has even drafted sample text for certain Part 108 regulations. Moreover, the report includes potential regulations within Part 108 where the committee’s recommendations could explicitly be addressed.[6] However, not every recommendation is addressed specifically by one of the proposed regulations, most notably, none of the environmental and general recommendations.[7]

In total, the ARC has made 70 recommendations. Specifically:

Category Number
Air & Ground Risk 9 recommendations
Flight Rules 9 recommendations
Aircraft & Systems 10 recommendations
Operator Qualifications 20 recommendations
Third Party Services 2 recommendations
Environmental 5 recommendations
General 15 recommendations
70 recommendations TOTAL

 

The FAA Rulemaking Process

Before diving into an analysis of the ARC’s recommendations regarding BVLOS UAS operations, it is first important to understand the FAA rulemaking process. To be clear, the Part 108 framework and proposed regulations included in the report are not presently rules; they do not carry the force of law that current regulations, such as Part 107, do. Additionally, at the time of writing, there has not yet been action taken by the FAA to implement any of the recommendations.

It is unclear when the FAA plans to commence rulemaking procedures to address the recommendations of the ARC. At the time of writing, there have been no press releases or policy statements issued by the FAA specifically addressing the timeline for BVLOS rulemaking. [Brendan Schulman Remote ID tweet reference?]. However, when they do, the process will probably look a lot like this:

  1. The FAA will issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register.[8] The Federal Register is essentially the newspaper of the federal government. The NPRM will contain the new proposed BVLOS rule and other legally required information such as the FAA’s authority for issuing regulations.[9]
  2. After the NPRM has been issued, there will be a period allotted for the general public to submit comments about the rule. At this stage, anyone may participate in the rulemaking process by submitting a comment to the rulemaking docket via regulations.gov.
  3. Once the public comment period is over, the FAA will review and consider the comments and subsequently issue a final rule.[10] When the FAA does issue a final rule, the agency is legally required to also issue a statement addressing the basis and purpose for the rule.[11]

The FAA rulemaking process described above is governed under § 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).[12] It’s the same process used by the FAA several years ago when the agency first issued the proposed Part 107 regulations, the rules governing UAS operations today. Over the next year, be on the lookout for social media posts advertising a request for public comments about the proposed BVLOS rules.

Analysis of Specific Recommendations

I. Air & Ground Risk Recommendations

Air & Ground Risk Recommendation 2.2:

“The rules should be predicated on the risks of operation based on UA capability, size, weight, performance, and characteristics of the operating environment as opposed to the purpose of the operation.”

The ARC has determined that BVLOS regulations should be based on levels of risk associated with the particular characteristics of a particular UA, specifically, UA capability, size, weight, performance, and characteristics of the operating environment. The ARC notes that “risk levels are based on the strategic air and ground mitigations applied to the operation.”[13] There are four risk levels proposed by the ARC: level 3, level 2A, level 2B, and level 1.[14]

Air & Ground Risk Recommendation 2.3:

“BVLOS operations to the greatest extent possible should be allowed to occur through compliance with the regulation alone without the need for a waiver or exemption.”

This recommendation indicates the ARC’s intent for waivers to no longer be necessary for BVLOS operations once new rules are implemented. The ARC notes that each proposed risk level should allow for BVLOS operations to be conducted without waivers or exemptions.[15] Waivers or exemptions should only be necessary in certain higher-risk operations.[16]

Air & Ground Risk Recommendation 2.4:

“The FAA should encourage voluntary reporting in accordance with the UAS Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS).”

This recommendation, if included in the final rule, would aid in promoting UAS safety initiatives and foster regulatory compliance. It is unclear if participation in the voluntary reporting system would be integrated with the FAA’s compliance philosophy.[17] The ARC notes that the FAA should provide guidance on what types of information should be reported and includes flight hours and basic safety metrics as examples.[18]

Air & Ground Risk Recommendation 2.6:

“The rule should allow UAS to conduct transient flight over people. The rule should allow sustained flight over non-participants with strategic and/or technical mitigations applied.”

There is little doubt that for BVLOS operations to be successful, both transient and sustained flight over people (particularly people not involved with the BVLOS operations) will be necessary. The ARC agrees and proposes these types of operations should be permitted by the new BVLOS rule if an acceptable level of risk (ALR) is established and met. The ARC argues that “the relevant time-based exposure is what contributes the most exposure to ground risk. While the ARC strongly supports a single set of ALR values for UA operations, the ARC recommends differentiating between flights that transit populated areas for only a short duration of time… versus the exposure of a flight with characteristics of sustained flight over people.”[19] Essentially, as long as appropriate risk mitigations are applied, these operations should be permitted.

II. Flight Rules Recommendations

Flight Rules Recommendation 2.4:

“The FAA should amend FAR Rule Part 91.113(d) to give UA[20] Right of Way for Shielded Operations.”

The ARC addresses right-of-way issues for both shielded and non-shielded operations in its report.[21] A “shielded area is defined as a volume of airspace that includes 100’ above the vertical extent of an obstacle or critical infrastructure and is within 100 feet of the lateral extent of the same obstacle or critical infrastructure.”[22] The ARC observes that crewed aircraft operations in this area of airspace are rare and hazardous. Consequently, there is a low risk for UA and crewed aircraft encounters or collisions in shielded areas.[23] So, it makes sense for UAS conducting BVLOS shielded operations to have the right-of-way over all other aircraft. The ARC proposes adding a new part (4) to 14 C.F.R. § 91.113(d) reading: “(4) Uncrewed Aircraft conducing BVLOS Shielded Operations have right of way over all other aircraft.”[24]

Flight Rules Recommendation 2.6:

“The FAA should revise § 91.103 to include a new part (c) to accommodate UA operations.”

Responsibility and authority of the remote pilot in command (RPIC) is an essential component to the UAS regulatory framework. An important element of RPIC responsibility is preflight action, specifically, becoming familiar with certain aspects of the planned UAS operation before actually going flying. The ARC addresses this element and recommends modifying the existing regulatory text of 14 C.F.R. § 91.103 to include a new part requiring certain preflight action responsibilities for BVLOS operations.[25] This action would include confirming “conditions for safe operation and safe launch and landing areas by consulting relevant information, which may include weather station information, systems and sensors on-aircraft and other flight support systems.”[26]

Flight Rules Recommendation 2.7:

“The FAA should amend § 91.119 to allow UA operations below the Minimum Safe Altitude restrictions.”

Here, the ARC addresses the unique capabilities of UAS and recommends that they should be allowed to fly below the current Minimum Safe Altitude (MSA) restrictions.[27] The ARC recommends modifying the regulatory text of 14 C.F.R. § 91.119.[28] Interestingly, the ARC also suggests that its 91.119 amendment “would allow lower risk UA BVLOS to conduct certain types of higher risk crewed aircraft operations (e.g., agricultural spraying and helicopter inspections of power lines) and reduce the number of deaths that occur in these operations every year.”[29]

Flight Rules Recommendation 2.8:

“The FAA should amend FAR Rule Part 107.31 to include Extended Visual Line of Sight.”

In this recommendation, the ARC proposes that 14 C.F.R. § 107.31 should be amended to permit extended visual line of sight operations meaning that the RPIC need not maintain visual line of sight with the UAS, “but a trained crewmember has situational awareness of the airspace around the UAS.”[30] The ARC has noted that this is technically a BVLOS operation, but cites a UAS that flies on a different side of a building as the RPIC is standing or around tress as examples.[31]

III. Aircraft & Systems Recommendations

            Aircraft & Systems Recommendation 2.1:

“The FAA should establish a new ‘BVLOS’ Rule which includes a process for qualification of uncrewed aircraft and systems. The rule should be applicable to uncrewed aircraft up to 800,000 ft-lb of kinetic energy in accordance with the Operating Environment Relative Risk Matrix.”

In its first aircraft and systems category recommendation, the ARC proposes that a “new alternative regulatory pathway” should be implemented to enable commercial BVLOS operations.[32] This alternative is Part 108. Regulations within Part 108, similar to the regulations contained within Part 107, will govern BVLOS UAS operations. The ARC includes several recommendations detailing what issues and operational considerations should be included in Part 108 regulations. The ARC also recommends that the rule address maintenance, repair, modifications, and software qualifications for UA and AE.[33]

Aircraft & Systems Recommendation 2.4:

“The new rules should include UA noise certification requirements appropriate to the operating environment. Compliance should be demonstrated through a simple testing methodology.”

In considering the environmental impact of BVLOS UAS operations, the ARC recommends there should be UAS noise certification requirements included within Part 108 regulations.

Aircraft & Systems Recommendation 2.7:

“Establish a new Special Airworthiness Certification for the UAS category under Part 21.”

The ARC notes that its intent for this recommendation is for the FAA “to create a regulatory framework for UA that is similar to that of Light-Sport Category aircraft using an FAA accepted declaration of compliance to an FAA-accepted means of compliance, which includes industry standards.”[34] The ARC also comments that the proposed Part 21 Special Airworthiness Certification (SAC) is designed for commercial BVLOS operations flying in higher-risk scenarios.[35]

Aircraft & Systems Recommendation 2.8:

“The FAA should establish a Repairperson Certification for the UAS Category to perform inspection, maintenance, and repair of UAS holding SAC under this proposal.”

The ARC addresses the importance of ensuring UAS maintenance is conducted by “adequately trained” individuals by recommending the creation of a new UAS category repairperson certification. The ARC suggests that the Light-Sport Category repairperson certification could be used as a template, or the FAA might even “consider adding UAS specific training to the existing LSA course or consider offering a supplement qualified repairpersons to become qualified to work on UAS.”[36]

Aircraft & Systems Recommendation 2.10:

“The FAA should consider allowing third party test organizations to audit compliance.”

This recommendation is further addressed by the ARC in its two specific “Third Party Services” recommendations. See below.

IV. Operator Qualifications Recommendations

            Operator Qualifications Recommendation 2.1:

“The FAA create a new 14 CFR Part that governs UAS BVLOS Pilot and Operator certification requirements and operating rules.”

Again, we see the ARC recommending the development of a new regulatory framework for BVLOS UAS operations. In this category of recommendations, the ARC’s focus is remote pilot certification and the logistics of BVLOS UAS operations. The ARC notes that the new rule should cover all aspects of BVLOS UAS operations not addressed by Part 107 and offers a proposed organizational structure for the new regulations.[37]

Operator Qualifications Recommendation 2.3:

“The FAA modify 14 CFR Part 107 to enable limited BVLOS operations under the existing Remote Pilot with Small UAS Rating certificate.”

The ARC proposes that the FAA should amend Part 107 to permit current remote pilots with a small UAS rating (sUAS) to participate in limited BVLOS operations. The ARC further notes that mitigation controls should be used, but the existing use of specific FAA Part 107 waivers should not be required.[38]

Operator Qualifications Recommendation 2.4:

“The FAA expand the knowledge test for the 14 CFR Part 107 Remote Pilot Certificate with Small UAS Rating to cover topics associated with EVLOS and shielded UAS operations.”

With respect to the certification of remote pilots, the ARC suggests integrating an assessment of BVLOS UAS operations to the Part 107 knowledge test (more commonly referred to as the written exam). Specifically, the ARC recommends that topics like communication and monitoring requirements for limited BVLOS operations, navigation requirements for limited BVLOS operations, and strategic and technical risk mitigations for limited BVLOS operations, among others, should all be assessed.[39]

Operator Qualifications Recommendation 2.5:

“The FAA establish a new BVLOS rating for the Remote Pilot certificate under the new 14 CFR Part.”

While limited BVLOS operations may be covered under Part 107, according to the ARC, operations that go beyond the scope of Part 107 limited BVLOS must have their own pilot certification requirements. The ARC suggests these certification requirements should be a component of the new Part 108 rules. The ARC recommends that the FAA should establish a BVLOS rating that remote pilots may obtain, similar to how private pilots may obtain an instrument rating. Additionally, the ARC supports both “direct and progressive” pathways to obtaining the BVLOS rating.[40]

Operator Qualifications Recommendation 2.9:

“Remote Pilots certificated under Part 107 that have completed a BVLOS training program certified by a public aircraft operator entity (as defined in 14 CFR Part 1) should be able to receive their BVLOS rating via online training, similar to the existing Part 107 certification pathway for current Part 61 pilots.”

One of the pathways to the BVLOS rating proposed by the ARC is similar to the current pathway for private pilots (or any Part 61 pilot) to obtain a remote pilot certificate. The ARC has considered that there are many currently certificated remote pilots who will be interested in adding the BVLOS rating. So, the ARC suggests that after completion of a BVLOS training program, current remote pilots “should be able to receive their BVLOS rating via online training.”[41]

Operator Qualifications Recommendation 2.11:

“Create two levels of Operating Certificates for commercial UAS operations: a Remote Air Carrier certificate and a Remote Commercial Operating certificate.”

Here, the ARC addresses the specific issue of BVLOS UAS operations for commercial purposes (in other words, when someone is paying you to operate a UAS BVLOS to capture images or videos, you’re operating a UAS for compensation or hire). The ARC recommends developing two different commercial operating certificate levels: a Remote Air Carrier certificate and a Remote Operating certificate. Once again, the ARC appears to be following the traditional blueprint for crewed commercial operations, which also have an Air Carrier Certificate and Operating Certificate option. The ARC proposes that these certification requirements should be established under existing Part 119 regulations and that the specific operating requirements be established under Parts 121 and 135.[42] If the FAA moves forward with this recommendation, “Part 121 drone operations” and “Part 135 drone operations” may be terms we begin hearing in the not-so-distant future.[43]

Operator Qualifications Recommendation 2.13:

“Create Operating Requirements that govern Remote Air Carrier and Remote Operating certificate holders.”

This recommendation seems, perhaps, obvious; yet here the ARC has identified the importance of the inevitable distinction between what operations may be permitted under a “Remote Air Carrier” certificate versus a “Remote Operating” certificate. Think about this distinction like you would the rules governing operations as a “Part 121 Air Carrier” as opposed to a “Part 135 Operator.” The ARC suggests adding Part 121/135 topics to the new Part 108 rule.[44] These topics would include recordkeeping and maintenance manuals, flight crew qualifications and duty limitations, aircraft requirements, upgrade and currency training, etc.[45]

Operator Qualifications Recommendation 2.14:

“Create Certification and Operating Requirements that govern Agricultural Remote Aircraft Operations.”

In the ARC’s charter, the FAA specifically required the ARC to “at a minimum… address requirements to support… precision agriculture operations, including crop spraying.”[46] So, the ARC has addressed the issue with this recommendation. The ARC recommends adding a new sub-part (G) to Part 137 regulations to govern the certification and operation of UAS for agricultural purposes.[47]

Operator Qualifications Recommendation 2.16:

“The FAA should develop tailored medical qualifications for UAS pilots and other crew positions that consider greater accessibility and redundancy options available to UAS.”

This recommendation is particularly significant. The ARC recommends that the FAA develop a new medical certificate specifically for UAS pilots. The ARC argues that establishing medical requirements for UAS crew will aid in “opening the door for extensive contributions by people who would otherwise be disqualified from piloting a crewed aircraft.”[48] So, the ARC “recommends that the FAA develop tailored medical qualifications for UAS pilots and other crew members that reflect the reduced physical requirements for flying UA… while ensuring appropriate standards of overall health necessary to perform UA crew duties.”[49] It remains unclear what the specific medical standards or regulatory text for an UA medical certificate would look like.

Operator Qualifications Recommendation 2.19:

“Allow only appropriately vetted UAS operators that are approved by the relevant authority to conduct operations deemed to be a higher security risk.”

In this recommendation, the issue of UAS security is addressed. The ARC proposes that the appropriate “relevant authority” should be the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to administer a security vetting process for Remote Pilot Certificate holders.[50] The ARC cites 49 U.S.C. § 44903(j)(2)(D) as the requirement for Part 107 and Part 91 pilots to be vetted.[51] Specifically, the ARC recommends that “UAS Operators, Remote Pilots and crew that intend to conduct high-risk UAS operations, or operations conducted in proximity to security-sensitive facilities or locations,” must be appropriately vetted.[52]

V. Third Party Services Recommendations

            Third Party Services Recommendation 2.1:

“The FAA should adopt a regulatory scheme for third party services to be used in support of UAS BVLOS.”

The ARC hinted at the use of third parties to support BVLOS UAS operations in aircraft & systems recommendation 2.10. Here, the committee has explicitly recommended that the FAA develop a regulatory framework for third party service providers (3PSPs) to support BVLOS UAS operations. The ARC proposes that an FAA certificate should be established for 3PSPs under the new Part 108 rules.[53] In its second third party services recommendation, the ARC also suggests that the FAA and NASA should collaborate to conduct a study “to determine what level of airspace would trigger the need for mandatory participation in federated or third-party services.”[54]

VI. Environmental Recommendations

            Environmental Recommendation 2.1:

“As the FAA reviews the BVLOS Rule, the ARC recommends the FAA determine that the BVLOS Rule is unlikely to result in significant impact to the environment.”

With this recommendation, the ARC is suggesting that whatever version of the new BVLOS rules are eventually enacted by the FAA, they must be environmentally friendly (specifically, it must be determined the rules will not have a “significant” impact to the environment). The ARC cites the National Environmental Policy Act, enacted in 1970, which requires administrative agencies to consider the impact their rules will have on the environment.[55] The ARC determines that it is not “reasonably foreseeable that a BVLOS Rule would lead to significant impacts in any of the relevant environmental impact categories specified in FAA Order 1050.1F.”[56] This FAA order outlines the agency’s practices for compliance with NEPA.[57] The ARC asserts that Part 108 BVLOS rules would not cause any significant environmental impacts.[58]

Environmental Recommendation 2.3:

“Environmental reviews should not be required for individual BVLOS operations enabled by the Rule.”

The ARC notes that the “current NEPA review process for individual expanded operations have proven particularly problematic for UAS operators because of the tremendous uncertainty and delay that such reviews inject.”[59] So, the ARC recommends that the final rule permitting BVLOS UAS operations should not subject each individual operation to NEPA environmental reviews. The ARC notes that the FAA should “undertake appropriate environmental review of the BVLOS Rule and leverage this review to broadly enable individual BVLOS operations pursuant to the rule.”[60]

Environmental Recommendation 2.5:

“The FAA interpret NEPA in a way that expedites the BVLOS rulemaking. If the FAA concludes that it is required to implement NEPA in such a way that would substantially delay either the BVLOS rulemaking or BVLOS operations, the ARC recommends asking Congress to consider legislative actions.”

Here, the ARC recommends that the provisions of NEPA be complied with “while avoiding unnecessary delay in approving environmentally friendly UAS operations for the benefit of the American public.”[61] It’s interesting that ARC references the benefit to the American public here as it speaks to the overall issue of broad public acceptance and the overall role of populations in shaping policy. It’s also noteworthy that the ARC recommends Congressional action should BVLOS rulemaking be delayed because of NEPA compliance. The ARC notes that “legislative action should be considered to avoid the unintended scenario where the environmental review process developed to satisfy an environmental statue hinders the adoption of sustainable, environmentally friendly modes of transportation, inspection, and monitoring.”[62]

VII. General Recommendations

            General Recommendation 2.2:

“Public Perception – The industry must continue to work with all governments, including federal, tribal, state, and local, as well as directly with communities to enhance public understanding of the benefits of UAS BVLOS use.”

Public perception is always an important part of forming policy. It’s noteworthy that the ARC recognizes this and formally recommends that entities other than solely the federal government be involved in shaping public opinion of BVLOS UAS operations.

General Recommendation 2.3:

“Immediately after promulgating the new BVLOS rule, the FAA should issue an Advisory Circular providing guidance.”

It is typical for the FAA to issue guidance via an Advisory Circular to address confusing or detailed provisions within the agency’s regulations. It is inevitable the final rule, when issued by the FAA, will be subject to many questions of regulatory interpretation. Here, the ARC suggests an advisory circular may assist in answering those questions.

General Recommendation 2.9:

“Counter-UAS Issues – The US government should renew the Preventing Emerging Threats Act.”

Once again, the issue of UAS security is addressed by the ARC in this recommendation. The ARC notes that if BVLOS UAS operations are to ever safely scale, “federal national security agencies must continue to have the legal authority to protect against potential public safety and homeland security threats posed by rogue UA.”[63] With this recommendation, the ARC is petitioning Congress (not necessarily solely the FAA) to take action to renew the Preventing Emerging Threats Act, originally passed in 2018.[64]

General Recommendation 2.15:

“Until the new rule is promulgated, the proposed framework outlined in the Operations Matrix should be leveraged as Guidance Material for applicants and reviewers under the existing FAR Part 107 Waiver Process.”

It remains unclear when exactly the new BVLOS rules will be enacted, but until they are, the ARC recommends that its findings be utilized as part of the current Part 107 waiver process.

Part 108 Proposed Regulatory Text

In addition to recommending a new regulatory framework to govern BVLOS UAS operations (Part 108), the ARC has outlined what certain regulations within Part 108 would look like. Examples of the plain regulatory text are included within the ARC’s final report. The ARC has also proposed changes to existing regulations, including 14 C.F.R. § 1.1 (general definitions), § 91.103 (pre-flight action), § 91.113 (right-of-way rules), and § 107.31 (visual line of sight).[65]

For the purposes of this article, only the proposed text for Subpart B (operating rules) is included. You can view the complete Part 108 proposed text in the final report at pages 151 through 187.

ARC Proposed New Part 108 Regulations (Selected List)[66]

108.11 Applicability

This Subpart applies to UAS BVLOS operations at the following Automated Flight Rules (AFR) Levels:

(a) For UA within 25,000 ft lbs. or less of kinetic energy, including everything that is on board or otherwise attached to the aircraft, operating at:

  1. AFR Level 2 Automation: a pilot to UA ratio greater than 1:5
  2. AFR Level 3 Automation: a pilot to UA ratio greater than 1:20

(b) For UA with no more than 25,000 ft lbs. of kinetic energy, including everything that is on board or otherwise attached to the aircraft, operating at: a pilot to UA ratio greater than 1:5.

108.15 Condition for safe operation

(a) No person may conduct a BVLOS UA operation unless the UA is in a condition for safe operation. For a BVLOS UA flight under AFR, the remote pilot in command will take appropriate steps to confirm conditions for safe operation and safe launch and landing areas by consulting relevant information, which may include weather station information, systems and sensors on-aircraft and other flight support systems. Prior to each flight, the remote pilot in command must check the uncrewed aircraft system, and associated elements, to determine whether it is in a condition for safe operation. Such checks may be conducted on-site by direct inspection; remotely via aircraft system monitoring and health ground and flight checks, or a combination of both as approved in the aircraft’s flight manual.

(b) No person may continue a BVLOS UA operation when the person knows or has reason to know that the UAS, or associated elements, are no longer in a condition for safe operation.

108.37 Operation near aircraft; low altitude right-of-way rules

(a) Every uncrewed aircraft operating below 500’ AGL and away from structures, must yield the right of way to all aircraft, airborne vehicles, and launch and reentry vehicles equipped and broadcasting their position via ADS-B out or Traffic Awareness Beacon Systems (TABS). Yielding the right of way means that the small uncrewed aircraft must give way to the aircraft or vehicle and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless there is adequate separation.

(b) Every crewed aircraft, airborne vehicle, and launch and reentry vehicle operating below 500’ AGL and away from structures, that is not equipped and broadcasting their position via ADS-B out or TABS must yield the right of way to all uncrewed aircraft. Yielding the right of way means that the crewed aircraft or vehicle must give way to the uncrewed aircraft and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless there is adequate separation.

(c) Every uncrewed aircraft operating below 500’ AGL and within 100 feet of a structure has right of way over all other aircraft, airborne vehicles, and launch and reentry vehicles.

(d) No person may operate an aircraft or an uncrewed aircraft in a manner that creates a collision hazard.

 108.XX Transient operations over human beings

To conduct transient operations –

1. The UA operations shall be a transient operation (with regard to flight over human beings) or includes transient flight over human beings. Transient flight over human beings is a transit route flight over people or a person. Transient operations are merely incidental to a point-to-point operation unrelated to the people or a person.

2. RPIC requirements.

a. A remote pilot in command –

i. Must use a UA that is eligible for transient operations pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section;

3. Uncrewed aircraft requirements for transient operations. To be eligible to conduct transient operations over human beings under this section, the UA must –

a. Have the minimum BVLOS capabilities; and

b. Software performs as intended.

4. Maintenance requirements for transient operations. The owner/operator must maintain the aircraft in an airworthy condition and,

a. Uses methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the manufacturer’s current maintenance manual;

b. Has the knowledge, skill, and appropriate equipment to perform the work; and

c. Performs the maintenance, preventative maintenance, or alterations on the uncrewed aircraft in a manner using the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the manufacturer’s current maintenance manual.

108.XX Sustained operations over human beings

To conduct sustained operations over human beings –

1. The UA shall be sustained operation (with regard to flight over human beings) or includes sustained flight over human beings. Sustained flight is hovering above people or a person, flying back and forth over people or a person, or circling above people in such a way that the unmanned aircraft remains above some portion of the person or persons.

2. RPIC requirements

a. A remote pilot in command –

i. Must use a UA that is eligible for sustained operations pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section;

3. Uncrewed aircraft requirements for sustained operations. To be eligible to conduct sustained operations over human beings under this section, the UA must –

a. Meet the requirements for BVLOS operations per Subpart D.

4. System requirements

a. The UAS or associate elements performs as intended.

5. Maintenance requirements sustained operations. The owner/operator must maintain the aircraft in an airworthy condition and,

a. Uses the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the manufacturer’s current maintenance manual;

b. Has the knowledge, skill, and appropriate equipment to perform the work; and

c. Performs the maintenance, preventative maintenance, or alterations on the uncrewed aircraft in a manner using the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the manufacturer’s current maintenance manual.

The ARC also included the following regulations within Subpart B but did not include proposed regulatory text for any of them.[67] Many of them mirror regulatory themes within Part 107 and Part 91 operations (for example, rules pertaining to hazardous operation, airspace, and in-flight emergencies):

  • 108.12 Requirement for a remote pilot certificate
  • 108.13 Registration
  • 108.29 Operation at night
  • 108.20 Operations in shielded areas
  • 108.21 In-flight emergency
  • 108.23 Hazardous operation
  • 108.27 Alcohol or drugs
  • 108.35 Operation of multiple uncrewed aircraft
  • 108.41 Operation in certain airspace
  • 108.43 Operation in the vicinity of airports or heliports
  • 108.45 Operation in prohibited or restricted areas
  • 108.47 Flight restrictions in the proximity of certain areas designated by notice to airmen
  • 108.49 Preflight familiarization, inspection, and actions for aircraft operation
  • 108.51 Operating limitations

Notes & References

[1] U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Aviation Rulemaking Committee Charter: UAS Beyond Visual Line-of-Sight Operations Aviation Rulemaking Committee 1 – 5 (2021), https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/media/UAS%20BVLOS%20ARC%20Charter%20(eff.%206-8-2021).pdf.

[2] Id. at 2.

[3] The four pillars are specifically addressed on page 19 of the report.

[4] UAS BVLOS Aviation Rulemaking Committee, Final Report, Appendix B, 199 – 210 [hereinafter Final Report].

[5] See id. at 161 – 179.

[6] Id. at 211 – 226 (Appendix C).

[7] Id. at 222 – 226 illustrating, in two tables entitled “Environmental Recommendations” and “General Recommendations,” that for each recommendation under the environmental and general categories, the “Potential Rule Location” is labeled as “NA.”

[8] Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553(b).

[9] Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(2).

[10] Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553(c).

[11] Id.

[12] 14 CFR § 11.1.

[13] Final Report at 68.

[14] See id. at 68 – 69 for descriptions of each proposed level.

[15] See id. at 69.

[16] Id.

[17] To learn more about the FAA’s compliance philosophy, see Federal Aviation Administration Safety Team, Compliance Philosophy, https://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/2016/media/SE_Topic_16-10.pdf.

[18] See Final Report at 70.

[19] Id. at 71.

[20] Note that “UA” stands for “Uncrewed Aircraft.” See id. at 189.

[21] See id. at 77 – 79.

[22] See id. at 79 (citing “shielded area” definition in the Critical Infrastructures Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5195(c) (2001)).

[23] Id.

[24] Id.

[25] Id. at 81.

[26] Id.

[27] See id. at 82.

[28] See id.

[29] Id.

[30] See id. at 83.

[31] Id.

[32] See id. at 85.

[33] See id. at 90 – 101 (recommendations AS 2.2 and 2.3). Note that “AE” stands for “Associated Elements.” See id. at 187.

[34] Id. at 106.

[35] See id.

[36] Id. at 107. Note that LSA stands for Light-Sport Aircraft.

[37] See id. at 110.

[38] See id. at 113.

[39] See id. at 115.

[40] See id. at 119 (recommendation OQ 2.8).

[41] Id.

[42] See id. at 121.

[43] See id. at 124 (recommendation OQ 2.13).

[44] See id. at 125.

[45] See id.

[46] U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Aviation Rulemaking Committee Charter: UAS Beyond Visual Line-of-Sight Operations Aviation Rulemaking Committee 1 – 5 (2021), https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/media/UAS%20BVLOS%20ARC%20Charter%20(eff.%206-8-2021).pdf.

[47] See Final Report at 125 – 126.

[48] Id. at 129.

[49] Id. at 130.

[50] See id. at 132.

[51] See id.

[52] Id.

[53] See id. at 134 (includes the proposed regulatory text of 14 C.F.R. § 108.XX).

[54] Id. at 135.

[55] United States Environmental Protection Agency, What is the National Environmental Policy Act, https://www.epa.gov/nepa/what-national-environmental-policy-act#:~:text=The%20National%20Environmental%20Policy%20Act%20(NEPA)%20was%20signed%20into%20law,actions%20prior%20to%20making%20decisions.

[56] Final Report at 135.

[57] U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Order 1050.1F  Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, 1 (2015), https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/order/faa_order_1050_1f.pdf.

[58] See Final Report at 136.

[59] Id. at 139.

[60] Id.

[61] Id. at 140.

[62] Id.

[63] Id. at 146.

[64] See id. at 146. To learn more about the Preventing Emerging Threats Act of 2018, see https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2836.

[65] See Id.at 151 – 156 for each proposed regulatory text change to existing regulations. Also, refer to previously described amendments to existing regulations in the “Analysis of Specific Recommendations” section.

[66] Id. at 161 – 163.

[67] Id.

Total Guide to Part 89 Remote ID (Requirements, Waivers, Lists of Modules & Drones).

FAA drone Part 89 remote identification laws are in effect.  In this article, we will answer common troubling questions such as:

  • What are the requirements for drone pilots?
  • How do you know what aircraft are compliant?
  • Where can I find a list of remote identification broadcast modules to retrofit my aircraft?
  • What happens if I cannot comply? Can I obtain some type of remote identification waiver from the requirement to broadcast?

If any of those questions hit home, this article is for you. But we won’t stop there, we’ll discuss all sorts of various issues related to remote ID so to make this the ultimate guide to Part 89 remote identification.

Note: On September 15, 2023, FAA issued a statement saying “FAA will exercise its discretion in determining how to handle any apparent noncompliance, including exercising discretion to not take enforcement action, if appropriate, for any noncompliance that occurs on or before March 16, 2024—the six-month period following the compliance deadline for operators initially published in the Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft final rule, RIN 2120-AL31. The exercise of enforcement discretion herein creates no individual right of action and establishes no precedent for future determinations.”


Part 89 Remote Identification Requirements

The Part 89 Remote Identification regulations are the next incremental step toward further integration of Unmanned Aircraft (UA) in the National Airspace System. In its most basic form, remote identification is described by the Federal Aviation Administration as a “digital license plate” for unmaned aircraft. The FAA views Remote ID (1) as necessary to address aviation safety and security issues regarding drone operations in the National Airspace System and (2) is an essential building block toward safely allowing more complex UA operations.

The final rule establishes Part 89 in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The final rule is in effect. Compliance timeframes and major provisions are summarized below.

Operating Rules for Pilots

Who must comply? Under the final rule, all unmanned aircraft (civil, recreational, police, fire, etc.) that are required to register must remotely identify, and operators have FOUR options (described below) to satisfy this requirement. This is very broad. Yes, even law enforcement must comply. With regards to weight, aircraft 55 pounds and heavier must comply. Those under 55 pounds must comply. For unmanned aircraft weighing 0.55 lbs or less, remote identification is only required if the unmanned aircraft is operated under rules that require registration. Here is where people get confused. An example of this is when you fly a little drone commercially and fly under Part 107. Part 107 requires registration regardless of weight.

Option 1. Fly a Standard Remote ID Unmanned Aircraft:

  • Broadcasts remote ID messages directly from the UA via radio frequency broadcast (likely Wi-Fi or Bluetooth technology), and broadcast will be compatible with existing personal wireless devices.
  • Standard Remote ID message includes UA ID (serial number of UA or session ID); latitude/longitude, altitude, and velocity of UA; latitude/longitude and altitude of Control Station; emergency status; and time mark.
  • Remote ID messages will be available to most personal wireless devices within range of the broadcast; however, correlating the serial number or session ID with the registration database will be limited to the FAA and can be made available to authorized law enforcement and national security personnel upon request.
  • The range of the remote ID broadcast may vary, as each UA must be designed to maximize the range at which the broadcast can be received.

Option 2. Fly a Drone with a Remote ID Broadcast Module:

  • Broadcast Module may be a separate device that is attached to an unmanned aircraft, or a feature built into the aircraft.
  • Enables retrofit for existing UA, and the Broadcast Module serial number must be entered into the registration record for the unmanned aircraft.
  • Broadcast Module Remote ID message includes the serial number of the module; latitude/longitude, altitude, and velocity of UA; latitude/longitude and altitude of the take off location, and time mark.
  • UA remotely identifying with a Broadcast Module must be operated within visual line of sight at all times.
  • Broadcast Module to broadcast via radio frequency (likely Wi-Fi or Bluetooth technology).
  • Compatibility with personal wireless devices and range of the Remote ID Broadcast Module message similar to Standard Remote ID UA (see above).

Option 3. Fly at an FAA-Recognized Identification Area (FRIA):

  • Geographic areas recognized by the FAA where unmanned aircraft not equipped with Remote ID are allowed to fly.
  • Organizations eligible to apply for the establishment of an FRIA include community-based organizations recognized by the Administrator, primary and secondary educational institutions, trade schools, colleges, and universities.
  • Must operate within the visual line of sight and only within the boundaries of an FRIA.
  • The FAA will begin accepting applications for FRIAs 18 months after the effective date of the rule, and applications may be submitted at any time after that.
  • FRIA authorizations will be valid for 48 months, may be renewed, and may be terminated by the FAA for safety or security reasons.

If you need help obtaining an FRIA for your Community-Based Organization or your education institution, contact me.

Option 4. Obtain Part 89 authorization or exemption to NOT have to broadcast

  • Multiple groups are interested in this such as :
    • Drone light shows with hundreds of drones.
    • FPV racers that are weight sensitive or that have issues with the remote ID signals causing control or video feed interference.
    • Beyond line of sight drones that are not standard ID but broadcast module remote ID and therefore unable to fly beyond line of sight. See 89.115(a)(2)(ii). 
    • Law enforcement needing to not broadcast so the bad guys don’t figure out they are being watched.
    • Security departments maintaining perimeter security.
  • You can obtain a certificate of authorization (COA) or exemption to not have to comply with remote ID. If you need help with one of these, contact me.
  • Note that there is a temporary ability for government entities to obtain a quick temporary emergency basis authorization from remote ID.
    • FAA can grant this temporary COA in certain situations such as:
      • National Defense,
      • Homeland security,
      • Intelligence gathering, or
      • Law enforcement purposes where broadcasting could compromise operational security that could result in injury to law enforcement or civilians, damage to property in the aircraft or on the ground, or failure of the mission.
    • Government entities cannot obtain these temporary remote ID authorizations for situations where operational security is not an issue such as:
      • Traffic monitoring and enforcement
      • Search and rescue
      • Maintenance
      • Training
      • Firefighting
      • Over patrols.
    • Individual operators must not contact FAA asking for this. Parent agencies, government entities, etc. should contact the FAA to coordinate this. If you are a government entity needing help with this, contact me.

Part 89 Remote Identification Design and Production Rules for Manufacturers

  • Most unmanned aircraft must be produced as Standard Remote ID Unmanned Aircraft and meet the requirements of this rule beginning 18 months after the effective date of the rule.
  • Remote ID Broadcast modules must be produced to meet the requirements of the rule before they can be used.
  • The final rule establishes minimum performance requirements describing the desired outcomes, goals, and results for remote identification without establishing a specific means or process.
  • A person designing or producing a standard UA or broadcast module must show that the UA or broadcast module met the performance requirements of the rule by following an FAA-accepted means of compliance.
  • Under the rule, anyone can create a means of compliance. However, the FAA must accept that means of compliance before it can be used for the design or production of any standard remote identification UA or remote identification broadcast module.
  • FAA encourages consensus standards bodies to develop means of compliance and submit them to the FAA for acceptance.
  • Highlights of Standard Remote ID UA Performance Requirements:
    • UA must self-test so UA cannot takeoff if Remote ID is not functioning
    • Remote ID cannot be disabled by the operator
    • Remote ID Broadcast must be sent over unlicensed Radio Frequency spectrum (receivable by personal wireless devices, ex: Wi-Fi or Bluetooth)
    • Standard Remote ID UA and Remote ID Broadcast Modules must be designed to maximize the range at which the broadcast can be received.

Other Provisions in the Remote Identification Final Rule

  • Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out and Air Traffic Control (ATC) Transponder Prohibition for UAS
    • The final rule amends Parts 91 and 107 to prohibit the use of ADS-B Out or ATC Transponders on UAS unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, or if flying under a flight plan and in two-way radio communication with ATC.
    • ADS-B Out & ATC transponder authorization is likely for large UAS operating in controlled airspace.
    • Part 89 prohibits the use of ADS-B Out as a means of meeting remote ID requirements.
  • Aeronautical Research
    • The rule provides for operators to seek special authorization to operate UA without remote identification for the purpose of aeronautical research or to show compliance with regulations.
  • Deviation authority
    • The final rule provides a mechanism for the FAA Administrator to authorize deviations from the operating requirements.
  • Foreign Registered Civil Unmanned Aircraft Operated in the United States
    • The rule allows a UA registered in a foreign country to be operated in the United States only if the operator files a notice of identification with the FAA. This enables the FAA and law enforcement to correlate a remote ID broadcast with a person responsible for the operation of a foreign-registered UA.

How Do I Know If My Aircraft Is Remote Identification Compliant?

You go to the FAA’s declaration of compliance list here. https://uasdoc.faa.gov/listDocs  Look up your aircraft. Note that sometimes you might have to search for the aircraft’s model number as opposed to its common name. You might also just have to search by manufacturer name and just scroll through all of the listings.  Sometimes manufacturers may have multiple DOCs for the same make/model because different serial number groups were approved. This could be because of design changes. You need to search inside the serial number lists to see which one applies to you.

Let’s pull some declarations and explain things.

Standard remote identification declaration of compliance

Here is a standard remote ID declaration of compliance for the Amazon Prime Air MK-27-2 aircraft.  The green accepted at the top shows it is still good. If it was rescrinded, it would have a big red “rescinded” marking at the top left. Here is an example of a rescinded DJI DOC.  All of the serial numbers approved in this Amazon DOC are in a CSV file.  The Means of Compliance (MOC) used was the ASTM standard with FAA additions.

Let’s study what a broadcast module DOC looks like.

Remote Identification broadcast module declaration of compliance

At the top it shows it is accepted. It says it is a “Declaration For: Broadcast Module” which differentiates it from a standard ID aircraft. The list of serial numbers is in the CSV file. The MOC was the ASTM MOC with FAA additions.

You should regularly check in to see if your DOCs are good as the FAA has rescinded in the past. Notices are published in the Federal Register. The DJI rescission posted in the Federal Register was fascinating.

On January 19, 2023, the FAA evaluated and accepted a DOC application with the assigned tracking number of RID000000111 appearing to be from DJI for the Mavic Pro Platinum unmanned aircraft. On February 16, 2023, the FAA received communication from DJI stating that the group of products listed in the DOC application with the assigned tracking number RID000000111 were, in fact, not compliant with the performance requirements of part 89. Therefore, DJI requested a rescission of the FAA-accepted DOC with tracking number RID000000111. DJI’s subsequent internal review of the incident determined that the employee listed as the contact on the DOC application no longer had RID certification responsibilities at the time the DOC was submitted, and their employee stated he did not submit the RID000000111 DOC. The FAA is continuing to investigate.


List of Broadcast Modules for Aircraft That Don’t Comply

Your aircraft isn’t compliant? Bummer. I created a list for you of broadcast modules.


Remote Identification Authorizations and Exemptions To Not Comply With Requirements

You can obtain authorization for the following scenarios.

  • You do not want or cannot to comply with:
    • Remote identification requirements overall (you do NOT want to broadcast). Entities interested in this would be:
      • Drone light show operators not wanting to retrofit all their drones with broadcast modules. Most drone light show aircraft were either custom-built or never built by manufacturers to comply with US remote ID requirements.
      • Law enforcement, national security, intelligence gathering, homeland security (border patrol), etc.
      • FPV racing.
      • People who are in fear for their safety due to people on the ground or their drone getting shot and causing a forest fire in a drought.
    • Standard remote identification requirements (because you want to broadcast but don’t meet some requirements for standard remote ID).  Here are some examples where I think this might pop up:
      • The Declaration of Compliance was rescinded by the FAA and a customer’s fleet is grounded. They figure it’s cheaper to obtain a COA to fly their technically non-compliant aircraft rather than retrofitting all of their fleet with broadcast modules. This is like the drone light show COAs.
      • A manufacturer has some bad software and remote identification broadcast fails. This could happen with a bad underlying software update that breaks or erases something. The manufacturer needs a temporary fix for their customers while they push out an update.
    • Broadcast module remote identification requirements (because you cannot comply with broadcast module equipment or operational requirements).
      • A beyond-line-of-sight drone was retrofitted by a manufacturer with a broadcast module due to issues with the ground controller. They couldn’t do standard ID because they might be using a ground controller from another company or there was no GPS receiver installed in the original controller. The poor customers can’t fly beyond line of sight because 89.115(a)(2)(ii) prohibits a broadcast module aircraft from being flown beyond line of sight.
  • You want to fly beyond line of sight at an FRIA.
  • You want to fly your drone outside of an FRIA.
  • You want to fly the drone only for aeronautical research. This could be where you have RF receiving equipment and you need to run silent. You could be developing a military drone that will never be manufactured to broadcast.
  • You want to manufacture drones for your own consumption and use them commercially. Your commercial operation is a type of operation you think the FAA will give you authorization for to not comply. It’s burdensome to comply with manufacturing these drones but you can obtain authorization to not comply.
  • You are a manufacturer working on type certification while also working on obtaining a Declaration of Compliance approval for your aircraft but nothing is approved yet.

If you do not fall into any of those things, you will need to obtain an exemption from the regulations.  Keep in mind that all of the things above can be also exempted. There are pros and cons to each of these. If you need help with an authorization or exemption, contact me. We can discuss a strategy to meet your goals with timing, price, confidentiality, etc.


How the Remote Identification Requirements Affect Different Groups:

Beyond Line of Sight Flyers

You have two types of remote ID: standard ID and broadcast ID. A lot of drones used for beyond line of sight are NOT standard ID. The only alternative is broadcast module ID.  Here is the big issue.  89.115 says:

A person operating an unmanned aircraft that is not a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft may comply with the remote identification requirement of § 89.105 by meeting all of the requirements of either paragraph (a) or (b) of this section. . . . (ii) The person manipulating the flight controls of the unmanned aircraft system must be able to see the unmanned aircraft at all times throughout the operation.

If you are BVLOS flying, you need a standard ID drone or you need approval from the FAA to deviate from Part 89. Contact me if you need this.

Drone Light Shows

Unless you want to equip ALL of those drones with broadcast remote identification, you’ll need some authorization. Furthermore, this also creates a safety issue because it greatly increases the noise floor and potentially interferes with command and control of the aircraft.  Contact me if you need help with obtaining one of these drone light show remote ID authorizations.

Law Enforcement

I’m guessing law enforcement will want to NOT broadcast if they are flying under Part 107 as civil aircraft.

General Part 107 Operations

You’ll need a standard remote identification aircraft to fly beyond line of sight.

You’ll need remote identification to even fly persistently over large crowds of people.

On top of those things, standard ID transmits the real-time location of the control which opens you up to assault, robbery, harassment, false allegations of trespass/eavesdropping, etc.  Broadcast module ID transmits the aircraft take-off location so you launch somewhere and then get to a safe location.

Your privacy was also thrown in the garbage. The FAA didn’t figure out session ID and kicked the can down the road which is evidenced by their statement in the final rule, “The FAA proposed that a session ID would be assigned by a Remote ID USS. Because this rule does not retain the requirement for standard remote identification unmanned aircraft to have an internet connection to a Remote ID USS, the FAA plans to develop an alternative strategy for assignment of session ID to unmanned aircraft operators. . . . FAA will seek public comment on the session ID policy prior to finalizing it.”  FlightAware is gonna be jumping all over this like they did with ADS-B.

First-Person View Flyers

  • Requires take-off location with GPS which means you need a GPS receiver attached.
  • Unless you broadcast, you can only fly at an FAA-recognized identification area (FRIA). Only recognized Community Based Organizations (CBOs) or educational institutions could apply for a FRIA. See 14 CFR 89.205. Basically, your backyard, your neighborhood park, etc. are all off-limits.
  • Recreational flying of the under 250 gram aircraft (0.55 pounds) does not have to be registered or transmit remote identification messages.  Non-recreational FPV flying would require registration and remote ID even if they were flying under 250 grams.

RaceDayQuads has a very helpful page with much more on this topic. Many people were concerned about the RID regulations prohibiting FPV flying. Here is an excerpt from RaceDayQuads’ page explaining why FPV won’t be prohibited:

Doesn’t the new rules cause havoc for the FPV community since you have to fly within visual line of sight in the FRIAs or with module ID? If a FPV flyer was wearing goggles, how could the drone be within line of sight? They have goggles on ya know!

To answer this, we need to go back into history to understand the FAA’s evolving view of “within visual line of sight” and “able to see” to understand what is going on here.

For many decades model aircraft flew under Advisory Circular 91-57. The FAA started applying the Federal Aviation Regulations to unmanned aircraft and their view on things was evolving.

In 2012, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 was passed which created Section 336 that protected model aircraft from being regulated by the FAA. The FMRA defined model aircraft as “flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft.” P.L. 112-95, section 336(c)(2).

In 2014, the FAA issued a model aircraft interpretation explaining how they thought you should do things, “Based on the plain language of the statute, the FAA interprets this requirement to mean that: (1) the aircraft must be visible at all times to the operator; (2) that the operator must use his or her own natural vision (which includes vision corrected by standard eyeglasses or contact lenses) to observe the aircraft; and (3) people other than the operator may not be used in lieu of the operator for maintaining visual line of sight. Under the criteria above, visual line of sight would mean that the operator has an unobstructed view of the model aircraft. To ensure that the operator has the best view of the aircraft, the statutory requirement would preclude the use of vision-enhancing devices, such as binoculars, night vision goggles, powered vision magnifying devices, and goggles designed to provide a “first-person view” from the model. reducing his or her ability to see-and-avoid other aircraft in the area. Additionally, some of these devices could dramatically increase the distance at which an operator could see the aircraft, rendering the statutory visual-line-of-sight requirements meaningless.” This is all before Part 107 became a law. The FAA was applying the regulations of the time, 91.113 which has a “see and avoid” requirement, to unmanned aircraft because the FAA believed that the FMRA’s “rulemaking prohibition would not apply in the case of general rules that the FAA may issue or modify that apply to all aircraft[.]” like Part 91’s regulations.

In 2016, Part 107 came out with Part 101 subpart E. Part 107 allows FPV flying under 107.31 and 107.33. Here is where people get tripped up. Section 107.31 says: (a) With vision that is unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, the remote pilot in command, the visual observer (if one is used), and the person manipulating the flight control of the small unmanned aircraft system must be able to see the unmanned aircraft throughout the entire flight in order to: . . . . (b) Throughout the entire flight of the small unmanned aircraft, the ability described in paragraph (a) of this section must be exercised by either: (1) The remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small unmanned aircraft system; or (2) A visual observer.” (Emphasis mine).

In 2018, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 hit the delete button on Section 336 and replaced it with now 49 USC 44809. This caused issues seeing that Part 101 subpart E was still on the books, but Section 44809 overruled it.  Most recreational flyers desire to fly within the exception for limited recreational operations listed in 49 USC 44809 which says in (a)(3), “The aircraft is flown within the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft or a visual observer co-located and in direct communication with the operator.” (Emphasis mine).

In 2019, the FAA cleaned things up by withdrawing the 2014 model aircraft interpretation which said FPV flying with goggles can’t see and avoid.

On 12/11/2020, the FAA withdrew Part 101 subpart E as a regulation because it caused confusion and was overruled by 49 USC 44809 which came from the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018.

CURRENTLY, you either fall into 49 USC 44809 which is for a very narrow group of recreational flyers (not all recreational flyers) or you fall into Part 107 which is for non-recreational flyers. That’s it. Remote ID in Part 89 applies to all unmanned aircraft, with some exceptions. All FPV flyers over 250 grams, flying in the national airspace of the United States, will have to do broadcast module remote ID, standard ID, fly in a FAA Recognized Identification Area (FRIA). FRIAs are granted only to recognized Community Based Organizations or educational institutions. Your backyard, friends’ yard, local park, etc. are most likely NOT going to be in a FRIA so FPV flyers flying a 250+gram drone are stuck doing standard ID (SID) or broadcast module ID (BMID).

Broadcast module ID allows for retrofitting aircraft but BMID has requirements:

“A person operating an unmanned aircraft that is not a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft may comply with the remote identification requirement of § 89.105 by meeting all of the requirements of either paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this section.

(a) Remote identification broadcast modules. Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, a person may operate an unmanned aircraft that is not a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft if all of the following conditions are met:

(1) Equipage.

(i) The unmanned aircraft used in the operation must be equipped with a remote identification broadcast module

 . . . .

(2) Remote identification operating requirements. Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, a person may operate an unmanned aircraft under this paragraph (a) only if all of the following conditions are met:

. . . .

(ii) The person manipulating the flight controls of the unmanned aircraft system must be able to see the unmanned aircraft at all times throughout the operation.

 . . . .

(b) Operations at FAA-recognized identification areas. Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, a person may operate an unmanned aircraft without remote identification equipment only if all of the following conditions are met:

 . . .

(2) The person manipulating the flight controls of the unmanned aircraft system must be able to see the unmanned aircraft at all times throughout the operation.” (Emphasis mine).

So how do we figure out what this “able to see” means in Part 89? Do FPV goggles void that? If I am wearing goggles, doesn’t that mean I’m not ABLE to see?

The remote ID notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) was attempting to define visual line of sight in Section 1.1. But that didn’t make it into the final rule. The final rule’s preamble said, “the FAA has determined not to adopt a definition for ‘visual line of sight’ in this rule.” They did not want to lock one definition in for ALL types of operations which may in the future have different definitions of visual line of sight, so they abandoned a one definition scenario. No help there. We need to look elsewhere.

In the remote ID NPRM, the FAA proposed the definition of visual line of sight from 107.31; therefore, that would be the most appropriate, and only other place to look, to identify how to define this term.  Context of 107.31 helps bring to light what is meant.  Section 107.31 says, “(a) With vision that is unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, the remote pilot in command, the visual observer (if one is used), and the person manipulating the flight control of the small unmanned aircraft system must be able to see the unmanned aircraft throughout the entire flight in order to: . . .(b) Throughout the entire flight of the small unmanned aircraft, the ability described in paragraph (a) of this section must be exercised by either: (1) The remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small unmanned aircraft system; or (2) A visual observer.”  (Emphasis mine). Here is a comparison.

89.105 (Broadcast Module Remote ID or FRIA) 107.31
“The person manipulating the flight controls of the unmanned aircraft system must be able to see the unmanned aircraft at all times throughout the operation.” “the person manipulating the flight control of the small unmanned aircraft system must be able to see the unmanned aircraft throughout the entire flight in order to:”

For 107.31, there is the ability to see by taking off the goggles and see the unmanned aircraft. The ability is primarily a distance and human capability number. The larger the drone, the further away you could fly. The smaller the drone, the shorter the distance you could fly it away. Now 107.31(b) says the ability must be getting exercised by the RPIC or VO.  Section 44809 and Part 89 do not have any such exercising of the ability requirement, just the ability.

In the area where the FAA discussed visual line of sight in the preamble of the final rule, it said, “FAA Response: As noted, the FAA has determined not to adopt a definition for ‘visual line of sight’ in this rule. The FAA recognizes that the concept of visual line of sight allows for variation in the distance to which an unmanned aircraft may fly and still be within visual line of sight of the person manipulating the flight controls of the UAS or the visual observer. The FAA believes this is appropriate given the performance-based nature of current UAS regulations.” (Emphasis mine). The ability to see the drone is what limits the distance you can fly away. Ability determines distance.

If we read part 89 and 107 to be harmony, Part 89 does not restrict FPV racers from using goggles as long as the person manipulating the controls is “able to see the unmanned aircraft at all times” and keeps the unmanned aircraft “within the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft or a visual observer co-located and in direct communication with the operator.”


Different Types of Remote Identification

Broadcast Module Identification

Here is what the FAA said:

  • Broadcast Module may be a separate device that is attached to an unmanned aircraft, or a feature built into the aircraft.

  • Enables retrofit for existing UA, and Broadcast Module serial number must be entered into the registration record for the unmanned aircraft.

  • Broadcast Module Remote ID message includes: serial number of the module; latitude/longitude, altitude, and velocity of UA; latitude/longitude and altitude of the take off location, and time mark.

  • UA remotely identifying with a Broadcast Module must be operated within visual line of sight at all times.

  • Broadcast Module to broadcast via radio frequency (likely Wi-Fi or Bluetooth technology).

  • Compatibility with personal wireless devices and range of the Remote ID Broadcast Module message similar to Standard Remote ID UA (see above).

The idea is you attach some approved broadcast module to your drone to retrofit it so it could be compliant.  The FAA thought, “Hey, it’s equivalent so we do not need to send out a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to alert everyone to this change and to receive feedback.” If they did send out a supplemental NPRM, they could have received a response saying adding a broadcast module to a drone and controller introduces additional safety issues. Basically, attaching a second radio transmitter on a drone in very close proximity raises serious technical issues of radio frequency interference due to software filters being unable to filter and the electromagnetic field issues where the 2nd set of electronics in close proximity can cause issues with aircraft’s electronic flight controls.

Standard Identification

The FAA said:

  • Broadcasts remote ID messages directly from the UA via radio frequency broadcast (likely Wi-Fi or Bluetooth technology), and broadcast will be compatible with existing personal wireless devices.

  • Standard Remote ID message includes: UA ID (serial number of UA or session ID); latitude/longitude, altitude, and velocity of UA; latitude/longitude and altitude of Control Station; emergency status; and time mark.

  • Remote ID message will be available to most personal wireless devices within range of the broadcast; however, correlating the serial number or session ID with the registration database will be limited to the FAA and can be made available to authorized law enforcement and national security personnel upon request.

  • Range of the remote ID broadcast may vary, as each UA must be designed to maximize the range at which the broadcast can be received.

If you want to fly BVLOS, you’ll need this. It also presents a safety hazard in that your controller location is always being broadcasted in real-time. Comon! That isn’t fair. A person can’t keep looking over his shoulder all the time for the bad guys who are looking to rob him when he is busy waiting for the FAA to ambush him.

Limited Remote Identification (Killed in Final Rule)

It was in the notice of proposed rulemaking but was killed. There were multiple reasons the FAA killed it. I won’t get into them all now but two important things are that the altitude of the aircraft and controller were both derived from a barometric altimeter (not from GPS) which means all sorts of aircraft and ground control stations would have to be upgraded with hardware. The other important thing is limited remote identification was originally transmitted using the transmitters located already in the ground control station and the aircraft. You would have at least 1 transmitter in the drone and at least 1 in the ground control station.

The FAA figured they could come up with an equivalent idea called broadcast module ID that would satisfy some of the security concerns. They look similar, but they are not.

Network Remote Identification (Killed in Final Rule)

Yes, network remote ID was killed in the final rule but below is what I was able to piece together to see how far the FAA was going to be “Big Brother” and monitor us. Massive violations of the 4th Amendment. My theory on this is that the FAA decided to scrap it and just let federal, state, and local law enforcement set up receivers to just log all the flights. Read the secret ConUse document I managed to obtain that the FAA secretly gave out to the big companies in those closed-door meetings: T Mobile, Airbus, Amazon, Skyward (Owned by Verizon), etc.

So do we just forget about this? Just check out what shocking things I uncovered about how the FAA, DHS, and UTM were/are all interconnected and how this all currently intersects with the 4th Amendment. With all of that in mind…..put your 4th Amendment glasses on and read what I’m about to say.

Remote ID is part of the Unmanned Aircraft Traffic Management System (UTM).  FAA, NASA, DHS, DOD have been working on this.  FAA, DHS, and DOD have a teaming agreement. DHS is going to be a federal Unmanned Aircraft Service Supplier (USS). While the FAA may be collecting a lot of the data, DHS could query things in the system. The FAA in explaining their Concept of Operations (CONOPs) regarding UTM, said the following:

  • “Flight Information Management System/FIMS  FIMS is an interface for data exchange between FAA systems and UTM participants. FIMS enables exchange of airspace constraint data between the FAA and the USS Network. The FAA also uses this interface as an access point for information on active UTM operations. FIMS also provides a means for approved FAA stakeholders to query and receive post-hoc/archived data on UTM operations for the purposes of compliance audits and/or incident or accident investigation. FIMS is managed by the FAA and is a part of the UTM ecosystem.”
    • DHS’s Air Domain Awareness Program is somehow connected to FIMS as a USS. See this Powerpoint presentation.
      • “Air Domain Awareness is understanding everything that is in the air around you . . . Includes all manned and unmanned aircraft”
      • “DHS is teaming with FAA and DOD to evaluate air domain awareness and counter UAS systems in real world situations”
      • The UTM CONOPS says, “The FAA provides services to certain federal public entities in support of public safety and security needs; services may include provision of portals designed to facilitate automated information exchanges and queries to the USS Network for authorized data. Local, state, tribal and federal public entities may have dedicated portals external to the FAA by which they can request and receive authorized information; USSs meet applicable security requirements and protocols when collecting and provisioning data to such entities. Authorization and authentication between entities, using IATF compliant identities, ensure data is provisioned to those permitted to obtain it. Authorized entities utilize USS Network discovery services to identify individual USSsfrom which to request and receive data commensurate with access credentials. USSs must be (1) discoverable to the requesting agency, (2) available and capable to comply with issue request, and (3) a trusted source as mitigation/enforcement actions may be taken as a result of the information provided.
  • “The FAA establishes requirements and response protocols to guard NAS systems and the public against associated security threats. The FAA uses UTM data (e.g., intent, RID messages) as a means of traceability to (1) ensure Operators are complying and conforming to regulatory standards, (2) identify and hold accountable those who are responsible during accident/incident investigations, and (3) inform other NAS users, if needed, of UAS activity in the vicinity of the airspace in which they are operating. The FAA can use near-real time data from UTM to address security needs with respect to operations conducted under ATM, including managing off-nominal and exigent circumstances. They use archived data as a means to analyze UTM operations and ensure NAS needs and safety objectives are being met. The FAA can also use UTM data to notify federal entities of security threats. The FAA leverages the GRAIN and the IATF policies to ensure the integrity and authenticity of the information received from all UTM stakeholders. “
  • “Local, state, tribal and federal entities (e.g., state police, Federal Bureau of Investigation, DHS) require access to UTM data to inform responses to local or federal complaints and safety/security incidents, and the conduct of investigations. Appropriate data access limitations are set by the FAA for individual federal and public/public safety entities (e.g., public information, classified information). Depending on the nature of the safety or security situation, historical or near-real time information may be needed. UTM data deemed publicly-accessible (e.g., RID messages) may be obtained by the general public through thirdparty services/applications and/or the government. UTM data that is not publicly-accessible (e.g., Operator contact information) is managed and provided based on the need to know, the credentials, and the level of access-to-information authorized for the requestor using identities issued compliant to the IATF policies.”
  • “Operators must satisfy FAA-stipulated data archiving and sharing requirements to support safety and security. Stakeholders may need information on active UTM operations for the purposes of aircraft separation and identification of UAS affecting air/ground activities, among other things, such that Operators respond to requests from authorized entities in near-real time; an example of such information is RID messages. Operators are required to archive certain data to support post-flight requests by authorized entities with a need to know (e.g., FAA, public entities), as previously noted; examples of such data may include operation intent, 4D position tracks, reroute changes to intent, and off-nominal event records (e.g., rogue UAS).”

Yes, network remote identification was killed in the final rule. But was DHS disconnected from as a USS from the FAA’s FSIMS database? Did they have access in the past? What access were they ever given? Is DOJ or DOD presently connected to FSIMS in any capacity? What records did any of them search? Did they have access to the LAANC, Drone Zone Accounts, Part 48 registration database with associated information, or any other databases?

How does this work into the digital investigations unit of the FAA? The FAA also has been developing the UAS Digital Investigations (UAS DI) Program.  Here are the CONOPs for this FAA office.


What manufacturers need to know about the remote identification rule.

If you want to get your aircraft issued a Declaration of Compliance (DOC), here is the FAA Advisory Circular on it.

If you are a manufacturer, you can propose your own Means of Compliance (MOC) which future DOCs can be issued under. This is a really important point. You don’t have to go with the current ASTM standard. You could propose and go through the process to get your proposed MOC accepted. It could be more optimized for your product or offer something that is presently not offered such as network remote identification or session ID to provide privacy.

Note that there are certain exceptions for home-built drones, drones of the U.S. Government, drones for aeronautical research and development or to show compliance with the regulations, or drones under 0.55 pounds. See 14 CFR 89.501.

If your aircraft cannot be retrofitted, you or your customers can obtain authorizations or exemptions for a solution.

If you need help with any of these solutions, contact me.


FAA Accepted Remote Identification Means of Compliance

On August 11, 2022, the FAA published the acceptance of the ASTM remote ID standard ….kinda. Interestingly, the FAA did not choose to accept the ASTM rule alone but just added its own set of requirements. What’s the point of ASTM standards if the FAA just tacks on whatever they want onto any standard?  What’s the purpose of rulemaking if the FAA just tacks on extra requirements onto these standards? Here are the FAA additions:

“The FAA-accepted MOC provided in this policy therefore is comprised of ASTM F3586-22 with the following additions:

1. The remote identification system shall protect the part 89-required broadcasted message from being altered or disabled by any person.

2. The remote identification system shall incorporate techniques or methods that reduce the ability of any person to physically and functionally modify or disable any aspect or component of the remote identification system that could impact compliance with the remote identification rule.

3. In applying Section 7.5.2 of ASTM F3586-22, the applicant shall determine whether masking the specified items from user input adequately provides the functional tamper resistance protection specified by this means of compliance, and if it does not, shall incorporate additional functional tamper resistance techniques or methods in accordance with this means of compliance.”

The FAA will over time add more of these means of compliance.  You can check the current list of remote ID means of compliance here.

Each Declaration of Compliance will explain which Means of Compliance was used.

If you want to create your own means of compliance (as a manufacturer or for other reasons), the FAA has an entire Advisory Circular explaining this process.


Contentious Background of How Remote ID Was Developed by FAA

The FAA was not honest and open about what happened in the creation of remote ID.

Ex-Parte Regulations and FAA NPRM Developments

It was literally a house ex parte. But this is kinda illegal. The FAA attorneys know that. More on that later but let’s first focus on the law. I put in bold the really important points.

49 CFR §5.19 Public contacts in informal rulemaking.

(a) Agency contacts with the public during informal rulemakings conducted in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553.

(1) DOT personnel may have meetings or other contacts with interested members of the public concerning an informal rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553 or similar procedures at any stage of the rulemaking process, provided the substance of material information submitted by the public that DOT relies on in proposing or finalizing the rule is adequately disclosed and described in the public rulemaking docket such that all interested parties have notice of the information and an opportunity to comment on its accuracy and relevance.

(2) After the issuance of the NPRM and pending completion of the final rule, DOT personnel should avoid giving persons outside the Executive Branch information regarding the rulemaking that is not available generally to the public.

(3) If DOT receives an unusually large number of requests for meetings with interested members of the public during the comment period for a proposed rule or after the close of the comment period, the issuing OA or component of OST should consider whether there is a need to extend or reopen the comment period, to allow for submission of a second round of “reply comments,” or to hold a public meeting on the proposed rule.

(4) If the issuing OA or OST component meets with interested persons on the rulemaking after the close of the comment period, it should be open to giving other interested persons a similar opportunity to meet.

(5) If DOT learns of significant new information, such as new studies or data, after the close of the comment period that the issuing OA or OST component wishes to rely upon in finalizing the rule, the OA or OST component should reopen the comment period to give the public an opportunity to comment on the new information. If the new information is likely to result in a change to the rule that is not within the scope of the NPRM, the OA or OST component should consider issuing a Supplemental NPRM to ensure that the final rule represents a logical outgrowth of DOT’s proposal.

I have no idea how the FAA complied with the regulations above during all of the stuff below….such as during the secret FBI academy remote ID demo where the FAA booklet literally says, “Brief summary of demonstration and Q&A” Drone Responders, Pierce Aerospace, NFL security and a bunch of state and local law enforcement went to this special meeting.  Why did Drone Responders get to go to this secret meeting but not AMA, AUVSI, or anyone else?

What about all of the other people who applied to be part of the remote ID cohort but didn’t get chosen like GE, Kittyhawk, etc.? The FAA never gave them an opportunity to be included.

With all of these regulations in mind, keep reading below to see if FAA violated any of them.

Remote Identification Cohort

The FAA also did all sorts of stuff with 8 companies working on network ID. This was all done privately. Here are the actual memorandum of understanding (MOU) documents the FAA signed in conjunction with Airbus,  Airmap,  Amazon,  Intel, Onesky, Skyward, T-Mobile, and Wing 

If you don’t believe those are true, see this Certification by the FAA saying these MOUs are true.

The FAA picked 8 companies to enter into agreements with to work on remote ID AFTER the remote ID NPRM was published.

Remember 5.19(a)(2) “After the issuance of the NPRM and pending completion of the final rule, DOT personnel should avoid giving persons outside the Executive Branch information regarding the rulemaking that is not available generally to the public.” The MOUs all said the FAA would provide a ConUse document.

“The FAA will: i. Provide access to data sets, ConUse document, draft Performance Rules and ICD. i. Provide subject matter expert review and advice to proposed technology products, concepts, equipment, software, and other related activities.”“A^3 by Airbus, LLC will: i. Participate in monthly meetings (nominally 2 days in duration) in person in the Washington, D.C. area. ii. Send 2-3 representatives from its organization to each meeting referenced in Section 6(c)(i) of this MOU. Representatives that A^3 by Airbus, LLC provides for these meetings must possess the demonstrated capability to cover strategic, technical, and/or legal aspects of Remote ID.”

Here is the Concept of Use of for Network ID.

Here is the certificate of true copy of the Concept of Use document.

None of this was disclosed in the rulemaking docket

5.19(a)(1) says, “DOT personnel may have meetings or other contacts with interested members of the public concerning an informal rulemaking . . . , provided the substance of material information submitted by the public that DOT relies on in proposing or finalizing the rule is adequately disclosed and described in the public rulemaking docket such that all interested parties have notice of the information and an opportunity to comment on its accuracy and relevance.

The MOUs called for meetings with the Cohort where representatives would be meeting to discuss network ID. Information DID go from these 8 companies to the FAA. Here is the agenda,   Powerpoint Presentation for the meeting, and the minutes of the meeting explaining what the companies and FAA talked about.

The MOUs have a lot of troubling statements (note that all 8 companies appear to have the same language in their respective MOUs with the FAA).   I can’t figure out how any of these points could be done with the 8 companies submitting information to the FAA without the FAA relying on for network ID:

  • “The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is to establish a working relationship between (FAA) and A^3 by Airbus LCC that will facilitate a collaborative working environment for the development of a technical and legal framework for initial prototyping and testing that will inform a national capability for Remote ID Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Service Suppliers (UAS) future for Remote Identification (Remote ID).”
  • “The FAA, working with the selected industry cohort, intends to build out a feature set and hold a prototype evaluation. The FAA also intends to evaluate the features in the prototype, address findings, and then roll the features out in a larger evaluation.”
  • “Apply collaborative problem solving among FAA and USS (e.g. virtual and in-person workshops) to identify sUAS information sharing needs, assess experience data collected from demonstrations, and recommend system enhancements.”
  • “Demonstration collaboration phase: Establish collaborative problem-solving among FAA, other government entities, and industry cohort to address sUAS Remote ID information and data sharing needs, assess experience data collected from demonstrations, and recommend system enhancements.”
  • “Alternative approaches, technology solutions, development models, business models, evaluation paths, scaling strategies, etc., for information sharing[.]”

5.19(a)(4) says, “If the issuing OA or OST component meets with interested persons on the rulemaking after the close of the comment period, it should be open to giving other interested persons a similar opportunity to meet.” Did you guys invite Kittyhawk, GE, or any of the others who applied? No.

5.19(a)(5) says,  “If DOT learns of significant new information, such as new studies or data, after the close of the comment period that the issuing OA or OST component wishes to rely upon in finalizing the rule, the OA or OST component should reopen the comment period to give the public an opportunity to comment on the new information.”  Instead of just following the regulations, the FAA just says in the final remote ID rule:

It has become apparent to the FAA that Remote ID USS may struggle in facing significant technical and regulatory requirements that go beyond existing industry consensus standards. Early in 2020, the FAA convened a Remote ID USS cohort to explore developing the network solution that is necessary to implement the proposed network requirements. The cohort identified several challenges with implementing the network requirements, which the FAA acknowledges it had not foreseen or accounted for when it proposed the network solution and Remote ID USS framework. For example, the cohort raised the challenge of developing and issuing technical specifications to govern remote identification interoperability when producers of UAS have not yet designed UAS with remote identification.

So how many legal violations did you spot?

O but there’s more!

Secret Remote ID Demo at FBI Training Academy

We found about this because the FAA published a comment here disclosing the existence of this secret demo. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FAA-2019-1100-53261

The Public Was Not Invited and FAA forced attendees to sign a form promising to not tell you. “I will NOT discuss, divulge, or disclose any Information to any unauthorized person or entity. I will safeguard and prevent the unauthorized disclosure of Information in accordance with all applicable statutes, regulations, and orders. I will return all Information and all copies and reproductions thereof upon request of the FAA.” Just read the Remote ID Demo at FBI Academy Acknowledgement Form

Here is the  document given out to attendees. Remote ID Demo at FBI Academy Logistics Book_final

More Ex Parte Events

Here are more examples of things being done NOT on the record, or according to the law, after the notice of proposed rulemaking.

  • FAA sent out a request for information (RFI) on in March 17, 2020 (NPRM on remote ID closed March 2) to try and obtain answers on how “low altitude manned aviators. . . could participate in Remote ID, access data from the Remote ID USSs, or otherwise benefit from the Remote ID information being transmitted from UAS.” Multiple groups responded but none of those comments have been disclosed. The RFI said, “Responses to this RFI will not be included in the official docket of the NPRM.” On October 22, 2020, Jay Merkle did a presentation to the Drone Advisory Committee which said that they had 30 responses to this RFI. The FAA thought they “missed the mark when communicating what [they] were looking for in the RFI so they wanted to take a second chance at this and asked the Drone Advisory Committee explore this opportunity and make some recommendations. In the 30 responses, the pilot organizations said they see “dubious benefits:
    • UASs have primary responsibility to avoid manned-aircraft.
    • RID is security-centric; it may be inadequate to affect safety.
    • Adding RID receiving capability would be an additional expense burden to low-level aircraft pilots.
    • Low-level pilots are especially concerned with task saturation (e.g., avoiding obstructions & being distracted from the mission).
    • Any solutions should integrate with current avionics (EFB, ADS-B).”
  • FAA Contract to NUAIR for Remote ID Testing as part of UPP Phase 2.
  • 12/17/2020- Jay Merkle (head of FAA UAS Integration Office) sent out a letter to all the tribal leaders. The FAA posted this in the docket.

Did Anyone Try and Stop the Ex Parte Fiesta?

The issue is the ex parte broke out AFTER the comment period closed.

Did anyone tell the FAA about this?  Well the FAA attorneys knew. We didn’t have to tell them. (Kathryn Inman who is an FAA attorney was the author of the PDF for the secret FBI academy dem0.) That’s why the FAA posted to the docket TWICE to appear like they were complying with the regulations. ( FBI academy remote ID demo and the letter to all the tribal leaders.)

Tyler Brennan of RaceDayQuads LLC did let the FAA and DOT know.  Here is his meeting he did with OIRA, FAA, and DOT.  Tyler’s submission for the meeting is helpful in understanding why ex parte is really bad:

This is being submitted as it relates to the FAA’s rulemaking activities in adopting a Final Rule based on the NPRM published on December 31, 2019 that provided for public comment until March 2, 2020 but otherwise denied an extension of that comment period.

The FAA has repeatedly engaged in ex parte conversations, meetings, and other communications with the public, government entities, and businesses on the subject of the rulemaking after the NPRM was filed. These activities suggest that communications made privately may or will influence the agency in its Final Rule.

These communications, whether or not having actual influence, prevent the public from being able to reply effectively to the information that was presented privately to the FAA so the FAA could make a fully informed decision affecting the safety and security of the national airspace. It is possible someone in the public could have pointed out some serious life-threatening safety and security flaws that were not previously identified and to forgo this opportunity is arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion.

Furthermore, the Administrative Procedures Act and the Due Process Clause requires notice; however, we have no notice of what has been presented to the FAA or relied on privately by the FAA which made its way into the final rule.

Not disclosing everything creates the appearance there is one administrative record for the public and this court and another for the FAA. The mere appearance of ex parte raises questions as to whether the final rule was based upon public comments or secret meetings and secret documents. The FAA just needs to make some public argument for the reason why they arrived at their decisions while keeping secret the true primary reason. Communications outside the record seriously frustrate any meaningful judicial review as judges will not ever know what was really relied upon in deciding. This also frustrates any review under the Congressional Review Act.

This raises serious questions of fairness. The undermining of the fairness of the rulemaking process erodes the FAA’s ability to protect the safety of the national airspace. Many individuals will feel victimized and disenfranchised and therefore justified in not complying with the rules. How is anyone supposed to respect the FAA when the FAA is clearly violating their own rulemaking procedures?
Such improper and unfair ex parte contacts include, but are not limited, to the following actual related out-of-record contacts: the remote ID cohort, the secret meeting at the FBI Academy, and Jay Merkle’s presentation at the Drone Advisory Committee.

The final shaping of the rules may have been by compromised among the contending industry forces, rather than by exercise of the FAA’s independent discretion for the public interest.
We are asking that the FAA pause the rulemaking, disclose all of the ex parte events with summaries of those discussions, disclose all of the ex parte documents, allow the public to comment, and then proceed ahead.


Lawsuits Challenging Remote Identification

RaceDayQuads filed a lawsuit. My article on the case is here. RaceDayQuads v FAA. Unfortunately, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal was not troubled by the FAA actions and chose to uphold the regulations as legal.

Some of the legal issues we raised in the case are still outstanding and could be raised in future litigation/criminal prosecution.


Can You Rely on Remote ID?  (RID being disabled and spoofed by people)

Remote ID is touted as a solution to keep people accountable.  Sure. It will work on unaware/clueless individuals who purchase a standard ID drone and then go fly it inappropriately.

To a determined and smart actor, it won’t work. Here is why…..there is information online explaining how to disable or spoofing remote ID.

This has lead to all sorts of tutorials online to turn off remote ID. Here is one that showed up in a forum.

There is also a tutorial on spoofing remote ID.  https://www.suasnews.com/2023/07/how-to-spoof-remote-id-squidrid/

The motivation for turning off remote ID is not always criminally motivated. And because of this, I suspect there will always be a growing library of knowledge on the internet contributing to disabling /spoofing remote ID.

1. Ukraine Conflict Causing People to Turn Off Remote ID

In Ukraine, DJI’s Aeroscope has been used by both sides of the conflict to identify DJI drones used by the other side.

There are stories of drone operators using a DJI and then out of no where an artillery barage comes in on their position.  Clever operators hacked their drones and…get this….put in the GPS coordinates of their enemy’s position resulting in the enemy’s artillery doing an artillery strike on their own troops.

2. Domestic operators fearful of crazy shotgun carrying rednecks/Karens.

I can say I get phone calls where drones are being shot down. FAA and law enforement are useless to protect people. The FAA ignored these comments in the remtoe ID rulemaking. It’s a matter of self-protection and putting food on the table of the family as the primary motivation of this group.

Imagine if a Rough Redneck and Krazy Karen puts a hole in a drone which leads to a crash and fire on the ground. You can end up with a large fire happening. This isn’t hypotehtical. Consider these documented real world examples of a crash leading to a large fire:

  • Three University of Colorado Boulder researchers conducting weather studies were operating a drone in the Table Mountain Radio Quiet Zone, Boulder County officials said. The aircraft crashed at a high rate of speed causing the lithium battery to catch on fire and spread to the surrounding area. . . . The wildfire quickly grew to about 52 acres, forcing evacuations which have since been rescinded.” Source.
  • “In June, a drone motor conked out while the vehicle was transitioning from a vertical climb to forward motion. The automatic safety feature designed to land the machine in such instances didn’t work. The aircraft flipped upside down, and a stabilizing safety function also failed. “Instead of a controlled descent to a safe landing, [the drone] dropped about 160 feet in an uncontrolled vertical fall and was consumed by fire,” the FAA wrote in a report on the incident. The ensuing blaze scorched 25 acres and was extinguished by the local fire department. Insider previously reported some of the incident’s details and last week published a report on the high costs of Amazon drone delivery.” Source.
  • “An unmanned aircraft crashed in an agricultural field on Saturday, May 14, sparking two small fires. . . . Baumgart said when his crew arrived on scene, they found an unmanned aircraft down in the field. The aircraft had sustained major damage, and one of the aircraft’s wings was a couple hundred yards away from where the body of the aircraft made impact. . . . The two small fires were isolated to the aircraft’s batteries. Baumgart said the location was mostly dirt, and with the fires isolated to the batteries – it was minimal and the Winters Fire unit was able to put it out.” Source.

This group will just turn off remote ID for fear of being shot or their drone being shot and catching everything on fire.


Remote Identification Timeline of Events

This timeline is very important so you can see what was happening overall during the rulemaking process. Pay attention to what was happening quietly with network ID.

  • December 20, 2018, FAA posted a RFI for remote-id cohort.
  • December 27, 2019, new final rule of DOT rulemaking regulations was published. 49 CFR 5.17(a)(2) & (4) says, “(2) After the issuance of the NPRM and pending completion of the final rule, DOT personnel should avoid giving persons outside the Executive Branch information regarding the rulemaking that is not available generally to the public. . . (4) If the issuing OA or OST component meets with interested persons on the rulemaking after the close of the comment period, it should be open to giving other interested persons a similar opportunity to meet.”
  • December 31, 2019, NPRM of remote ID published.
  • January 2020- all the Remote ID cohort MOUs were signed. My theory is this was all rushed to get all signed prior to the 1/27 effective date of the new DOT rulemaking regulations.
  • January 27, 2020, new DOT rulemaking regulations went into effect.
  • February 26-27, 2020, Ex parte meeting on remote ID with remote ID cohort.  Technical Interchange Meeting #1 in Arlington Virginia with FAA.
  • March 2, 2020, NPRM COMMENT PERIOD CLOSES
  • March 17, 2020- FAA sent out a request for information (RFI) on figuring out how manned aircraft benefit from
  • March 24-25, 2020, Technical Interchange Meeting #2 with remote ID cohort done via Zoom. They discussed the ASTM remote ID standard.
  • April 6, 2020 – County of Oneida NY (aka NY Test Site) awarded UPP Phase 2 contract to work on remote ID.
  • April 15, 2020 – DOT IG’s Office published a report showing FAA lacked adequate security for Drone Zone and LAANC systems.
  • April 28-29, 2020, Technical Interchange Meeting #3 with remote ID cohort done via Zoom.
  • May 5, 2020 – FAA put out a press release regarding the cohort being selected. (The MOUs were signed in January).
  • May 8, 2020 – FAA had to send out a “clean up” email regarding the 5/5 press release.
    • “1 Remote ID Cohort Information
      Thanks for the questions we received after yesterday’s press release on the Remote ID Cohort. To clarify, the Cohort is not part of the decision-making process for the proposed Remote ID rule final rule. The Cohort will help the FAA develop technology requirements for other companies to develop applications needed for Remote ID. The comment period on the Remote ID Notice of Proposed Rulemaking closed on March 2, 2020, and the FAA is reviewing the more than 53,000 comments.
      If you are a member of the media, contact us at [email protected] and a public affairs specialist will respond.
      If you are a drone operator with questions about Remote ID, or any other drone-related question, please email [email protected] or call 844-FLY-MY-UA.”
  • May 27, 2020 – Technical Interchange Meeting #4 with remote ID cohort on OAuth in Remote ID USS Data Exchanges via Zoom.
  • June 29, 2020 Technical Interchange Meeting #5 on Zoom.  Email says, “Q&A time with an FAA Executive concerning recent remote ID strategic decisions.”
  • September 17, 2020, FAA secret remote ID demonstration at FBI training academy with federal, state, and local, law enforcement and some civilian entities like Drone Responders, NFL security, and Pierce Aerospace.
  • December 17, 2020- Jay Merkle (head of FAA UAS Integration Office) sent out a letter to all the tribal leaders.
  • December 28, 2020- DOT released a press release on the remote ID along with the draft final rules.
  • January 15, 2021 – the Federal Register posting of the final rule was published.
  • March 10, 2021, Federal Register posting that the compliance date of remote id is moved from March 16 to April 21.
  • July 29, 2022, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals delivers opinion upholding the remote ID laws.
  • September 16, 2022, deadline for manufacturers to comply with remote ID standards when manufacturing standard ID aircraft, type certificated unmanned aircraft, and broadcast modules.
  • September 15, 2023, FAA issued a statement saying “FAA will exercise its discretion in determining how to handle any apparent noncompliance, including exercising discretion to not take enforcement action, if appropriate, for any noncompliance that occurs on or before March 16, 2024—the six-month period following the compliance deadline for operators initially published in the Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft final rule, RIN 2120-AL31. The exercise of enforcement discretion herein creates no individual right of action and establishes no precedent for future determinations.”
  • September 16, 2023, deadline for everyone to comply with the remote ID regulations.

Major Changes from Proposed Rule to Final Rule

  • Network-based / Internet transmission requirements have been eliminated. The final rule contains Broadcast-only requirements.
  • UAS operators under the Exception for Limited Recreational Operations may continue to register with the FAA once, rather than registering each aircraft. However each Standard UA or Broadcast Module serial number must also be entered into the registration record for the unmanned aircraft.
  • ‘Limited Remote ID UAS’ has been eliminated and replaced with Remote ID Broadcast Module requirements to enable existing UA to comply.
  • FRIA applications may be submitted to the FAA beginning 18 months after the effective date of the rule, and applications may be submitted at any time after that
  • Educational institutions may now apply for FRIAs as well as community-based organizations.

Remote Identification Risk Assessments

I couldn’t find any FAA risk assessment for Remote ID anywhere. They aren’t on the docket or on the FAA’s website. We even received 2 “no records” determinations to FOIA requests. (I redacted the names and addresses)

No Records Determination for FOIA Request 1

No Records Determination for FOIA Request 2

Drone Law for Drone Training Educators, K-12 Schools, & Universities.

pro drone zone

This article is written to help drone training educators and schools who offer drone training courses to understand the legal issues surrounding drones.

Why? We need drones in the schools to promote STEM education.  If you are an educator or school needing material, I have created a dedicated drone education resource page where I will continually add resources to help you in this area. :)

If you are setting up a drone program, you should check out my article 5 Problem Areas When Integrating Drones Into Large Companies as it brings up many questions that need to be answered by schools or universities setting up a drone program.


Foundations of Drone Law for Drone Training Educators

From my book Drones: Their Many Civilian Uses and the U.S. Laws Surrounding Them:

The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress authority to “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states.”[1] Congress created the Federal Aviation Agency by the Federal Aviation Act of 1958,[2] but in 1967, Congress changed the name into the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) and moved that agency into the Department of Transportation (“DOT”) which is a Presidential cabinet department.[3] The FAA has been given by Congress jurisdiction to regulate navigable airspace of aircraft by regulation or order.[4] . . . .

The FAA has created regulations,[5] known as the Federal Aviation Regulations (“FARs”), which govern the certification of only civil aircraft,[6] civil pilot licensing,[7] airspace,[8] commercial operations,[9] general pilot operating rules,[10] pilot schools and certificated agencies,[11] airports,[12] and navigational facilities.[13]
federal-aviation-regulations-versus-interpretaionsThe FAA also “regulates” in multiple ways by creating advisory circulars, or memos or interpretations on the regulations. Regulations ARE the law while advisory circulars, memos, and interpretations are the FAA’s opinion of how to follow the law, but they are NOT the law.  However, they somewhat become law in effect because even though they are not law, the interpretations change people’s behavior who would rather not pay an attorney to defend them in a prosecution case. They in effect stay out of the grey area like the guy with the yellow shirt in the graphic. When I say grey, I don’t mean that it is not clear as to whether it is law, the grey area is not law, but I mean that it is unclear as to whether a judge would agree with the FAA’s opinion and would find the guy in the yellow shirt to be in violation of the regulations. In short, the law is what you get charged with violating, but the interpretations/memos/advisory circulars are what determine if you are on the FAA “hit list” so they can go fishing to try and get you with the law.

Keep in mind that the FAA has the super vague regulation which prohibits you from acting in a careless or reckless manner[14] which functionally acts as a catch-all. This gets thrown in as a charge for almost every FAA prosecution out there. Out of the 23 FAA enforcement actions against drone operators I studied, all 23 of them were charged with violating 91.13 (107.23 was NOT around at the time the prosecutions started).

Why are these regulations created? They are really safety standards that have been proscribed by the FAA for us to follow to maintain the safety of the national airspace system. The FARs apply to almost everything that touches aviation. A good exercise is to find something that the FARs do NOT regulate.

Below is a graph to help you understand the different areas that the FAA regulates which all contribute to the safety of the national airspace system.

faa-far-standards-pilot-aircraft-maintenance-medical


How Drone Training Educators Can Fly Legally

Unmanned aircraft can be flown as public aircraft under a public COA/COW, as civil aircraft flown under a Section 44807 exemption (formerly called Section 333 exemption), as non-recreational unmanned aircraft under Part 107, or under Section 44807 as a recreational unmanned aircraft. The classification of the aircraft will determine which set of regulations and standards are used.

We are now going to explore each of the 4 options as they relate to drone education.

Option 1. Public Aircraft Operations Under a Public COA/COW

Public aircraft are those that (1) fall into 1 of 6 statutorily defined owned/operated situations,[15]  and (2)  are NOT flying for a commercial purpose.[17] The big benefit to obtaining public aircraft status is the public aircraft operator determines their own standards for the pilot, aircraft, maintenance of the aircraft, and the medical standards of the pilot, but they still must fly under the restrictions given to them by the FAA as listed in the public certificate of authorization (COA) and/or certificate of waiver.

Technically, most of the operations will be done under a waiver and not authorization but the industry has used the legally incorrect terminology so long that I’m just including them together as COA/COW.  If you hear a person say a public COA, it’s the same thing I’m referencing here. It’s a public aircraft operation that needs to obtain a certificate from the FAA to fly under the regulations. Authorizations are for certain regulations while waivers are for certain regulations. </Legal hair-splitting rant>

Option 2. The 44807 Exemption

BRIEF HISTORY:

Originally these were called Section 333 exemptions. The first group of exemptions in 2014 were for the cinematography industry which was focused on creating movies, not on instructing or education. Exemptions are operation specific. The restrictions slowly morphed over time to be “eh O.K.” enough to allow for other industries to use the exemptions. Over a year after the first exemptions were granted in 2014, on November 20, 2015, the FAA finally granted an exemption to Kansas States University to allow for flight instructing. The FAA issued their educational memo on May 4, 2016 and Part 107 was released June 21, 2016 which is far easier to operate under than the exemptions. The idea behind the memo was to allow people to fly for purposes of education without having to obtain an exemption. To further promote flight training, the FAA granted on November 14, 2016 an amendment to a giant list of exemptions to allow many exemptions to conduct training of students.

But with all this great news, Part 107 somewhat hit reset because the FAA stopped renewing exemptions and most of them expired.  The FAA Reauthorization of October 2018 caused a large reset to this area because it changed Part 101 which is what recreational flyers used to fly under and renamed Section 333 to Section 44807.

CURRENTLY:

Section 44807 gives the Department of Transportation authority to determine that the unmanned aircraft does not need an airworthiness certificate. This authority given to the DOT was created before Part 107 or Part 101 were created. It was used to get drones airborne before Part 107 came into effect which is why under 55 pound aircraft were flying under it. Since Part 107 has gone into effect, Section 44807 exemption is really only for aircraft weighing 55 pounds and heavier.

How the 44807 exemption process works is 44807 takes care of the airworthiness certification regulations and the remaining regulations are taken care of by using the Part 11 exemption process. This is why the paperwork allowing you to fly was nicknamed the 44807 exemption (or Section 333 exemption) process, even though Section 44807 does NOT provide any exemption powers!

Even if you have an exemption, some of these regulations are still very burdensome to comply with. For example, 14 CFR 91.119 requires the aircraft to be at least 500ft away from non-participating people and property which makes it very hard to do aerial photography from 500ft! The operator operates under all the federal aviation regulations, except for those specifically exempted.  Where exempted, the operator flies according to the restrictions which will provide an equivalent level of safety as the regulations they were exempted from.

Just to recap, you use the 44807 exemption process pretty much only when you are flying a 55 pound or heavier aircraft as Part 107 is easier to fly under.

Option 3. 49 U.S.C. Section 44809 Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft

So this area gets slightly confusing. To save you all the back story, basically, we had Section 336 and Part 101. They both are no longer good law. Section 44809 is what recreational pilots fly under now. The Federal Aviation Authorization Act of 2018 create a new provision that allows educators to fly under this 44809 recreational exception.

(a) Educational and Research Purposes.-For the purposes of section 44809 of title 49, United States Code, as added by this Act, a ‘recreational purpose’ as distinguished in subsection (a)(1) of such section shall include an unmanned aircraft system operated by an institution of higher education for educational or research purposes.

. . .

(d) Definitions.-In this section:

(1) Institution of higher education.-The term ‘institution of higher education’ has the meaning given to that term by section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)).

(2) Educational or research purposes.-The term ‘education or research purposes’, with respect to the operation of an unmanned aircraft system by an institution of higher education, includes-

“(A) instruction of students at the institution;

“(B) academic or research related uses of unmanned aircraft systems that have been approved by the institution, including Federal research;

“(C) activities undertaken by the institution as part of research projects, including research projects sponsored by the Federal Government; and

“(D) other academic activities approved by the institution.

(e) Statutory Construction.-

(1) Enforcement.-Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue an enforcement action against a person operating any unmanned aircraft who endangers the safety of the national airspace system.

(2) Regulations and standards.-Nothing in this section prohibits the Administrator from promulgating any rules or standards consistent with maintaining the safety and security of the national airspace system.

The benefit to using this exception is it is less regulated. There are some restrictions in that it is very narrow in scope and I suspect that some of the students want to actually fly under Part 107 for non-recreational purposes. Also, there is a greater downside if there is a violation when flying under 44809 than just a Part 107 flyer. But for you, that might not be much of an issue. It’s your call. You can also just fly indoors where the FAA doesn’t have jurisdiction.

Option 4. Part 107 (Non-Recreational Operations) Drone Training 

In my opinion, the best choice is for the professor/teacher to obtain a remote pilot certificate. (In-depth step-by-step instructions for obtaining the certificate for first time and current pilots are located here). One student at a time can fly under your direct supervision or they could fly recreationally.

There are two options for obtaining it:

  1. Manned aircraft pilots certificated under Part 61 and who are also current with a biannual flight review can take a free online training course. They can then get identified from either a certified flight instructor, an FAA aviation safety inspector, a designated pilot examiner, or from an airmen certification representative. They then file through an online portal. They’ll receive and email later notifying them they can print out their temporary remote pilot certificate.
  2. Brand new pilots can take the remote pilot initial knowledge exam ($150) at a testing center. Also, manned pilots who are not current will have to take the knowledge exam.

If you are brand new to all of this and don’t know much about Part 107, read my article on the Part 107 Drone Regulations.

There are many resources out there to study for the exam. There are some paid courses out there (like www.rupprechtdrones.com), but I have created a FREE 100+ page study guide for this test.

Part 107 Articles You Might Enjoy


Important Points About Part 107 For Educators & Schools:

Please understand that this is NOT a complete list.

The minimum age of the remote pilot in command is 16 years of age. Keep in mind there is no limit how young a person can be who is flying under the direct supervision of the teacher.

Part 107 is for OUTSIDE buildings while in the national airspace. You can get around the regulations by operating in a completely closed building.

The FAA said on page 103-104 of the preamble to the small unmanned aircraft final rule:

To further enable the educational opportunities identified by the commenters, this rule will allow the remote pilot in command (who will be a certificated airman) to supervise another person’s manipulation of a small UAS’s flight controls. A person who receives this type of supervision from the remote pilot in command will not be required to obtain a remote pilot certificate to manipulate the controls of a small UAS as long as the remote pilot in command possesses the ability to immediately take direct control of the small unmanned aircraft. This ability is necessary to ensure that the remote pilot in command can quickly address any mistakes that are made by an uncertificated person operating the flight controls before those mistakes create a safety hazard.

The ability for the remote pilot in command to immediately take over the flight controls could be achieved by using a number of different methods. For example, the operation could involve a “buddy box” type system that uses two control stations: one for the person manipulating the flight controls and one for the remote pilot in command that allows the remote pilot in command to override the other control station and immediately take direct control of the small unmanned aircraft. Another method could involve the remote pilot in command standing close enough to the person manipulating the flight controls so as to be able to physically take over the control station from the other person. A third method could employ the use of an automation system whereby the remote pilot in command could immediately engage that system to put the small unmanned aircraft in a pre-programmed “safe” mode (such as in a hover, in a holding pattern, or “return home”).


Potential Liability Issues that Drone Training Instructors and Schools Face

Instructors and schools face liability issues from multiple areas. Please understand that this is NOT a complete list. You should talk to an attorney to find out what applies to your situation.

State and Local Law Issues

All sorts of states, towns, and counties have started creating drone laws. It is becoming very problematic to keep track of them all since they are springing up like mushrooms. It is almost as if drone laws are like the latest fad for government officials – like Pokemon and we are now as drone operators trying to catch them all.

Here are two resources that could be very valuable to help you find out your STATE laws:

Regarding county, city, and town laws…good luck.  You are on your own there. This is a big problem for the industry because there is no easy way to track the laws. The databases aren’t complete and these local governments all are wanting to play FAA use all sorts of different terms (drones, UAS, unmanned aircraft, model aircraft, model airplanes, etc.).  You end up having to search for a bunch of different terms and hope one get’s a hit; otherwise, you are stuck in the land of uncertainty wondering if you didn’t find the drone law out there or there aren’t any.

The reason I bring this up is there are state laws that have criminal penalties and other liability issues. For example, Florida’s law provides for a private right of action for an individual to sue the drone operator using a drone to gather data of the person’s property that was not able to be seen at eye level. Make sure you check your local laws! The FAA is NOT the only one trying to regulate your drones.

Another recent thing to pop up is certain state or policies restricting the use of DJI or Chinese-made drones.

Students Versus the Teacher

Let’s say a student is flying the drone and the teacher isn’t paying attention to the student’s flying. BAM. Now the student injured himself, the teacher, or another student.  Uhhh ooo.

Was the teacher proficient in instructing? Was there a means to override the student’s actions to prevent this? Is there insurance covering the teacher, school, and student? Go read my article on drone insurance.

Third Party Bystander Versus Teacher (Now & Later)

This area of liability can be broken down into current liability and a residual type of liability.

The current type of liability would be the teacher and student versus other third parties in the area at the time. (Maybe a mom jogging with a baby stroller, the mailman, old guy walking his dog, etc.)

The more subtle and dangerous type of liability is the lingering residual type of liability that happens when you train many students. If you train 100 students, that is 100 reasons flying around to get you sued. If one of them crashes into someone, you could get brought into a lawsuit as a defendant under the idea that you provided negligent instruction to the student. Hopefully, you will have an insurance policy that will cover this. This is why I, and other flight instructors, stop instructing altogether because we don’t want to have this lingering liability.

You should also document the living daylights out of all the training you give to students. This will come in handy later on if there is a lawsuit. I created a drone operator’s logbook which will be helpful for documenting training.  Yes, it is a paper logbook which means you WON’T have battery, connectivity, firmware, IOS version, etc. problems.

I talk about liability and insurance in greater depth in my drone insurance article.


Conclusion

This is an evolving area of the law. On top of that, it is confusing. If you are setting up a program or currently are running one, you might want to consider working with an aviation attorney to help you navigate this area safely.  Additionally, you might need waivers and/or authorizations for some of your operations. If you are needing help, contact me so we can get your program off the ground and soar to new heights of success by integrating drones to save time, money, and lives.  Check out our online courses over at www.rupprechtdrones.com which are great for integrating into your teaching. :)

[1] U.S Const. art. I, § 8; see also 49 U.S.C. § 40103 (a)(1)(“The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.”).

[2] Federal Aviation Act, Pub. L. No. 85-726, 72 Stat. 731 (1958).

[3] See A Brief History of the FAA, Fed. Aviation Admin., http://www.faa.gov/about/history/brief_history/

[4] See 49 U.S.C. § 40103(b)(1)(Congress delegated to the FAA the job to “develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace.”)(emphasis mine).

[5] 14 C.F.R. §§ 1-199.

[6] 14 C.F.R. §§ 21-49.

[7] 14 C.F.R. §§ 61-67.

[8] 14 C.F.R. §§ 71-77.

[9] 14 C.F.R. §§ 119-135.

[10] 14 C.F.R. §§ 91-105.

[11] 14 C.F.R. §§ 141-147.

[12] 14 C.F.R. §§ 150-161.

[13] 14 C.F.R. §§ 170-171.

[14] 14 C.F.R. § 91.13; 107.23.

[15] See 49 U.S.C § 40102(a)(41).

[16] See 49 U.S.C. § 40125(a).

[17] See id.