13 equal horizontal stripes of red (top and bottom) alternating with white. There is a blue rectangle in the upper hoist-side corner bearing 50 small, white, 5-pointed stars arranged in 9 offset horizontal rows of 6 stars (top and bottom) alternating with rows of 5 stars. The 50 stars represent the 50 states, the 13 stripes represent the 13 original colonies. Blue stands for loyalty, devotion, truth, justice, and friendship, red symbolizes courage, zeal, and fervency, while white denotes purity and rectitude of conduct. Commonly referred to by its nickname of Old Glory.

Flag courtesy of the CIA World Factbook

Map courtesy of the CIA World Factbook

Google Earth

Stalactites and stalagmites, made of travertine, can be seen on the Frozen Niagara tour of Mammoth Cave in Kentucky. Travertine, or traveling stone, is made of limestone that has crystalized out of dripping water.

Photo Courtesy of CIA World Factbook

Government

According to Britannica, the Constitution of the United States, written to redress the deficiencies of the country’s first constitution, the Articles of Confederation (1781-89), defines a federal system of government in which certain powers are delegated to the national government and others are reserved to the states. The national government consists of executive, legislative, and judicial branches that are designed to ensure, through separation of powers and through checks and balances, that no one branch of government is able to subordinate the other two branches. All three branches are interrelated, each with overlapping yet quite distinct authority.

The US Constitution, the world’s oldest written national constitution still in effect, was officially ratified on June 21, 1788 (when New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the document), and formally entered into force on March 4, 1789, when George Washington was sworn in as the country’s first president. Although the Constitution contains several specific provisions (such as age and residency requirements for holders of federal offices and powers granted to Congress), it is vague in many areas and could not have comprehensively addressed the complex myriad of issues (e.g., historical, technological, etc.) that have arisen in the centuries since its ratification. Thus, the Constitution is considered a living document, its meaning changing over time as a result of new interpretations of its provisions. In addition, the framers allowed for changes to the document, outlining in Article V the procedures required to amend the Constitution. Amending the Constitution requires a proposal by a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress or by a national convention called for at the request of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states, followed by ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures or by conventions in as many states.

In the more than two centuries since the Constitution’s ratification, there have been 27 amendments. All successful amendments have been proposed by Congress, and all but one, the Twenty-First Amendment (1933), which repealed Prohibition, have been ratified by state legislatures. The first 10 amendments, proposed by Congress in September 1789 and adopted in 1791, are known collectively as the Bill of Rights, which places limits on the federal government’s power to curtail individual freedoms.

Between the ratification of the Bill of Rights and the American Civil War (1861–65), only two amendments were passed, and both were technical in nature. The Eleventh Amendment (1795) forbade suits against the states in federal courts, and the Twelfth Amendment (1804) corrected a constitutional error that came to light in the presidential election of 1800, when Democratic-Republicans Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr each won 73 electors because electors were unable to cast separate ballots for president and vice president. The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments were passed in the aftermath of the Civil War. The Thirteenth (1865) abolished slavery, while the Fifteenth (1870) forbade denial of the right to vote to formerly enslaved men. The Fourteenth Amendment, which granted citizenship rights to formerly enslaved people and guaranteed to every citizen due process and equal protection of the laws, was regarded for a while by the courts as limiting itself to the protection of formerly enslaved people, but it has since been used to extend protections to all citizens. Initially, the Bill of Rights applied solely to the federal government and not to the states. In the 20th century, however, many (though not all) of the provisions of the Bill of Rights were extended by the Supreme Court through the Fourteenth Amendment to protect individuals from encroachments by the states.

Notable amendments since the Civil War include the Sixteenth (1913), which enabled the imposition of a federal income tax; the Seventeenth (1913), which provided for the direct election of US senators; the Nineteenth (1920), which established woman suffrage; the Twenty-fifth (1967), which established succession to the presidency and vice presidency; and the Twenty-sixth (1971), which extended voting rights to all citizens 18 years of age or older.

The executive branch is headed by the president, who must be a natural-born citizen of the US, at least 35 years old, and a resident of the country for at least 14 years. A president is elected indirectly by the people through the Electoral College system to a four-year term and is limited to two elected terms of office by the Twenty-second Amendment (1951). The president’s official residence and office is the White House, located at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. in Washington, D.C. The formal constitutional responsibilities vested in the presidency of the US include serving as commander in chief of the armed forces; negotiating treaties; appointing federal judges, ambassadors, and cabinet officials; and acting as head of state. In practice, presidential powers have expanded to include drafting legislation, formulating foreign policy, conducting personal diplomacy, and leading the president’s political party.

The members of the president’s cabinet, the attorney general and the secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, Education, Energy, and Veterans Affairs, are appointed by the president with the approval of the Senate; although they are described in the Twenty-fifth Amendment as “the principal officers of the executive departments,” significant power has flowed to non-cabinet-level presidential aides, such as those serving in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Council of Economic Advisers, the National Security Council (NSC), and the office of the White House Chief of Staff; cabinet-level rank may be conferred to the heads of such institutions at the discretion of the president. Members of the cabinet and presidential aides serve at the pleasure of the president and may be dismissed by him at any time.

The executive branch also includes independent regulatory agencies such as the Federal Reserve System and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Governed by commissions appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate (commissioners may not be removed by the president), these agencies protect the public interest by enforcing rules and resolving disputes over federal regulations. Also part of the executive branch are government corporations (e.g., the Tennessee Valley Authority, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation [Amtrak], and the US Postal Service), which supply services to consumers that could be provided by private corporations, and independent executive agencies (e.g., the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Science Foundation, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration), which comprise the remainder of the federal government.

The US Congress, the legislative branch of the federal government, consists of two houses: the Senate and the House of Representatives. Powers granted to Congress under the Constitution include the power to levy taxes, borrow money, regulate interstate commerce, impeach and convict the president, declare war, discipline its own membership, and determine its rules of procedure.

With the exception of revenue bills, which must originate in the House of Representatives, legislative bills may be introduced in and amended by either house, and a bill, with its amendments, must pass both houses in identical form and be signed by the president before it becomes law. The president may veto a bill, but a veto can be overridden by a two-thirds vote of both houses. The House of Representatives may impeach a president or another public official by a majority vote; trials of impeached officials are conducted by the Senate, and a two-thirds majority is necessary to convict and remove the individual from office. Congress is assisted in its duties by the General Accounting Office (GAO), which examines all federal receipts and expenditures by auditing federal programs and assessing the fiscal impact of proposed legislation, and by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a legislative counterpart to the OMB, which assesses budget data, analyzes the fiscal impact of alternative policies, and makes economic forecasts.

The House of Representatives is chosen by the direct vote of the electorate in single-member districts in each state. The number of representatives allotted to each state is based on its population as determined by a decennial census; states sometimes gain or lose seats, depending on population shifts. The overall membership of the House has been 435 since the 1910s, though it was temporarily expanded to 437 after Hawaii and Alaska were admitted as states in 1959. Members must be at least 25 years old, residents of the states from which they are elected, and previously citizens of the United States for at least seven years. It has become a practical imperative, though not a constitutional requirement, that a member be an inhabitant of the district that elects him. Members serve two-year terms, and there is no limit on the number of terms they may serve. The speaker of the House, who is chosen by the majority party, presides over debate, appoints members of select and conference committees, and performs other important duties; he is second in the line of presidential succession (following the vice president). The parliamentary leaders of the two main parties are the majority floor leader and the minority floor leader. The floor leaders are assisted by party whips, who are responsible for maintaining contact between the leadership and the members of the House. Bills introduced by members in the House of Representatives are received by standing committees, which can amend, expedite, delay, or kill legislation. Each committee is chaired by a member of the majority party, who traditionally attained this position on the basis of seniority, though the importance of seniority has eroded somewhat since the 1970s. Among the most important committees are those on Appropriations, Ways and Means, and Rules. The Rules Committee, for example, has significant power to determine which bills will be brought to the floor of the House for consideration and whether amendments will be allowed on a bill when it is debated by the entire House.

Each state elects two senators at large. Senators must be at least 30 years old, residents of the state from which they are elected, and previously citizens of the United States for at least nine years. They serve six-year terms, which are arranged so that one-third of the Senate is elected every two years. Senators also are not subject to term limits. The vice president serves as president of the Senate, casting a vote only in the case of a tie, and in his absence the Senate is chaired by a president pro tempore, who is elected by the Senate and is third in the line of succession to the presidency. Among the Senate’s most prominent standing committees are those on Foreign Relations, Finance, Appropriations, and Governmental Affairs. Debate is almost unlimited and may be used to delay a vote on a bill indefinitely. Such a delay, known as a filibuster, can be ended by three-fifths of the Senate through a procedure called cloture. Treaties negotiated by the president with other governments must be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. The Senate also has the power to confirm or reject presidentially appointed federal judges, ambassadors, and cabinet officials.

The judicial branch is headed by the Supreme Court of the United States, which interprets the Constitution and federal legislation. The Supreme Court consists of nine justices (including a chief justice) appointed to life terms by the president with the consent of the Senate. It has appellate jurisdiction over the lower federal courts and over state courts if a federal question is involved. It also has original jurisdiction (i.e., it serves as a trial court) in cases involving foreign ambassadors, ministers, and consuls and in cases to which a US state is a party.

Most cases reach the Supreme Court through its appellate jurisdiction. The Judiciary Act of 1925 provided the justices with the sole discretion to determine their caseload. In order to issue a writ of certiorari, which grants a court hearing to a case, at least four justices must agree (the “Rule of Four”). Three types of cases commonly reach the Supreme Court: cases involving litigants of different states, cases involving the interpretation of federal law, and cases involving the interpretation of the Constitution. The court can take official action with as few as six judges joining in deliberation, and a majority vote of the entire court is decisive; a tie vote sustains a lower-court decision. The official decision of the court is often supplemented by concurring opinions from justices who support the majority decision and dissenting opinions from justices who oppose it.

Because the Constitution is vague and ambiguous in many places, it is often possible for critics to fault the Supreme Court for misinterpreting it. In the 1930s, for example, the Republican-dominated court was criticized for overturning much of the New Deal legislation of Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In the area of civil rights, the court has received criticism from various groups at different times. Its 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, which declared school segregation unconstitutional, was harshly attacked by Southern political leaders, who were later joined by Northern conservatives. A number of decisions involving the pretrial rights of prisoners, including the granting of Miranda rights and the adoption of the exclusionary rule, also came under attack on the ground that the court had made it difficult to convict criminals. On divisive issues such as abortion, affirmative action, school prayer, and flag burning, the court’s decisions have aroused considerable opposition and controversy, with opponents sometimes seeking constitutional amendments to overturn the court’s decisions.

At the lowest level of the federal court system are district courts. Each state has at least one federal district court and at least one federal judge. District judges are appointed to life terms by the president with the consent of the Senate. Appeals from district-court decisions are carried to the US courts of appeals. Losing parties at this level may appeal for a hearing from the Supreme Court. Special courts handle property and contract damage suits against the United States (United States Court of Federal Claims), review customs rulings (United States Court of International Trade), hear complaints by individual taxpayers (United States Tax Court) or veterans (United States Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims), and apply the Uniform Code of Military Justice (United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces).

Because the US Constitution establishes a federal system, the state governments enjoy extensive authority. The Constitution outlines the specific powers granted to the national government and reserves the remainder to the states. However, because of ambiguity in the Constitution and disparate historical interpretations by the federal courts, the powers actually exercised by the states have waxed and waned over time. Beginning in the last decades of the 20th century, for example, decisions by conservative-leaning federal courts, along with a general trend favoring the decentralization of government, increased the power of the states relative to the federal government. In some areas, the authority of the federal and state governments overlap; for example, the state and federal governments both have the power to tax, establish courts, and make and enforce laws. In other areas, such as the regulation of commerce within a state, the establishment of local governments, and action on public health, safety, and morals, the state governments have considerable discretion. The Constitution also denies to the states certain powers; for example, the Constitution forbids states to enter into treaties, to tax imports or exports, or to coin money. States also may not adopt laws that contradict the US Constitution.

The governments of the 50 states have structures closely paralleling those of the federal government. Each state has a governor, a legislature, and a judiciary. Each state also has its own constitution.

Mirroring the US Congress, all state legislatures are bicameral except Nebraska’s, which is unicameral. Most state judicial systems are based upon elected justices of the peace (although in many states this term is not used), above whom are major trial courts, often called district courts, and appellate courts. Each state has its own supreme court. In addition, there are probate courts concerned with wills, estates, and guardianships. Most state judges are elected, though some states use an appointment process similar to the federal courts and some use a nonpartisan selection process known as the Missouri Plan.

State governors are directly elected and serve varying terms (generally ranging from two to four years); in some states, the number of terms a governor may serve is limited. The powers of governors also vary, with some state constitutions ceding substantial authority to the chief executive (such as appointment and budgetary powers and the authority to veto legislation). In a few states, however, governors have highly circumscribed authority, with the constitution denying them the power to veto legislative bills.

Most states have a lieutenant governor, who is often elected independently of the governor and is sometimes not a member of the governor’s party. Lieutenant governors generally serve as the presiding officer of the state Senate. Other elected officials commonly include a secretary of state, state treasurer, state auditor, attorney general, and superintendent of public instruction.

State governments have a wide array of functions, encompassing conservation, highway and motor vehicle supervision, public safety and corrections, professional licensing, regulation of agriculture and of intrastate business and industry, and certain aspects of education, public health, and welfare. The administrative departments that oversee these activities are headed by the governor.

Each state may establish local governments to assist it in carrying out its constitutional powers. Local governments exercise only those powers that are granted to them by the states, and a state may redefine the role and authority of local government as it deems appropriate. The country has a long tradition of local democracy (e.g., the town meeting), and even some of the smallest areas have their own governments. There are some 85,000 local government units in the United States. The largest local government unit is the county (called a parish in Louisiana or a borough in Alaska). Counties range in population from as few as 100 people to millions (e.g., Los Angeles county). They often provide local services in rural areas and are responsible for law enforcement and keeping vital records. Smaller units include townships, villages, school districts, and special districts (e.g., housing authorities, conservation districts, and water authorities).

Municipal, or city, governments are responsible for delivering most local services, particularly in urban areas. At the beginning of the 21st century there were some 20,000 municipal governments in the United States. They are more diverse in structure than state governments. There are three basic types: mayor-council, commission, and council-manager governments. The mayor-council form, which is used in Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, Chicago, and thousands of smaller cities, consists of an elected mayor and council. The power of mayors and councils vary from city to city; in most cities the mayor has limited powers and serves largely as a ceremonial leader, but in some cities (particularly large urban areas) the council is nominally responsible for formulating city ordinances, which the mayor enforces, but the mayor often controls the actions of the council. In the commission type, used less frequently now than it was in the early 20th century, voters elect a number of commissioners, each of whom serves as head of a city department; the presiding commissioner is generally the mayor. In the council-manager type, used in large cities such as Charlotte (North Carolina), Dallas (Texas), Phoenix (Arizona), and San Diego (California), an elected council hires a city manager to administer the city departments. The mayor, elected by the council, simply chairs the council and officiates at important functions.

As society has become increasingly urban, politics and government have become more complex. Many problems of the cities, including transportation, housing, education, health, and welfare, can no longer be handled entirely on the local level. Because even the states do not have the necessary resources, cities have often turned to the federal government for assistance, though proponents of local control have urged that the federal government provide block-grant aid to state and local governments without federal restrictions.

The framers of the US Constitution focused their efforts primarily on the role, power, and function of the state and national governments, only briefly addressing the political and electoral process. Indeed, three of the Constitution’s four references to the election of public officials left the details to be determined by Congress or the states. The fourth reference, in Article II, Section 1, prescribed the role of the Electoral College in choosing the president, but this section was soon amended (in 1804 by the Twelfth Amendment) to remedy the technical defects that had arisen in 1800, when all Democratic-Republican Party electors cast their votes for Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, thereby creating a tie because electors were unable to differentiate between their presidential and vice presidential choices. (The election of 1800 was finally settled by Congress, which selected Jefferson president following 36 ballots.)

In establishing the Electoral College, the framers stipulated that “Congress may determine the Time of chusing [sic] the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.” In 1845 Congress established that presidential electors would be appointed on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November; the electors cast their ballots on the Monday following the second Wednesday in December. Article I, establishing Congress, merely provides (Section 2) that representatives are to be “chosen every second Year by the People of the several States” and that voting qualifications are to be the same for Congress as for the “most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.” Initially, senators were chosen by their respective state legislatures (Section 3), though this was changed to popular election by the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913. Section 4 leaves to the states the prescription of the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives” but gives Congress the power “at any time by Law [to] make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.” In 1875 Congress designated the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in even years as federal election day.

This table below summarizes the three branches of US Government

Civil / National Aviation Authority (CAA/NAA)

The CAA/NAA for the US is the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

You may find a brief history of the FAA quite fascinating!

The FAA provides air traffic services for the NAS.

The FAA has a Dynamic Regulatory System which is a comprehensive knowledge center of regulatory and guidance material from the Office of Aviation Safety and other Services and Offices.

The FAA has the authority to create a comprehensive regulatory system governing the safe and efficient management of UAS and AAM operations, including non-commercial operations at ground-level altitudes, above private property, and within state boundaries following the laws Congress has passed under its Constitutional Commerce Clause powers.

In addition, following the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, the state and local laws affecting the field of aviation safety and the efficient use of airspace are federally preempted, (FAA Office of the Chief Counsel, State and Local Regulation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems UAS Fact Sheet), although non-federal government entities may still issue specific laws pertaining to UAS that do not touch this federally preempted field.

The US DOT has communicated it is the FAA’s “long-held position that . . . [FAA] has the responsibility to regulate aviation safety and the efficiency of the airspace within the navigable airspace, which may extend down to the ground.” This authority and responsibility to regulate all aircraft operations down to the ground are based in part on 49 U.S.C. § 40103(b)(1), from Congress’s Air Commerce Act of 1926 legislation enacted in the context of crewed aircraft. As currently codified, that provision authorizes the FAA to regulate “the use of the navigable airspace . . . to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of [that] airspace,” and “navigable airspace” is defined as the airspace above minimum safe flight altitudes prescribed by FAA regulations.

Although the FAA has not issued regulations prescribing minimum safe flight altitudes for UAS or AAM, DOT officials have told the Government Accountability Office in interviews, “It is the Department’s stance that, for purposes of the definition of the term navigable airspace, zero feet (‘the blades of grass’) is the minimum altitude of flight for UAS.” (Government Accountability Office, 2020.) UAS operations at ground level also are supported by 49 U.S.C. § 44701(a)(5) which directs the FAA to issue “air commerce” safety regulations. The officials noted that because “air commerce,” in contrast to “navigable airspace,” is not defined by a minimum altitude, FAA may regulate UAS and other “aircraft” in the stream of interstate commerce even when they are on the ground. Support also comes from 49 U.S.C. § 40103(b)(2), which among other things directs FAA to issue air traffic regulations for “protecting individuals and property on the ground.”

The FAA points to the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, to rule that state and local laws affecting the field of aviation safety and the efficient use of airspace are federally preempted although non-federal government entities may still issue laws and ordinances pertaining to UAS and AAM that are not in this preempted category. In particular, according to the FAA, it is responsible for air safety “from the ground up,” including for UAS and AAM operations. In addition, “navigable airspace,” “air commerce,” and “national airspace system” statutes and rules are cited by FAA as supporting its regulation of UAS and AAM operations from the ground up. The agency refers throughout the preamble to one of its UAS rulemakings to the regulation of UAS operations now as in the general “airspace of the United States” (Fed. Reg. 72438 (Dec. 31, 2019).

The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 – established that “the FAA, was passed by Congress for the purpose of centralizing in a single authority the power to frame rules for the safe and efficient use of the nation’s air space.”

Federal code 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5) allows the FAA to prescribe regulations and minimum standards necessary for safety in air commerce and national security,” and this allowance leaves “some room for state and local UAS laws, albeit recommending that state authorities first consult federal aviation authorities in such matters.” Jurisprudence on the Federal Aviation Act shows that where there are pervasive regulations in an area, the Federal Aviation Act preempts all state claims in that area, particularly air safety.

Airspace

ICAO countries publish an Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP). This document is divided into three parts: General (GEN), En Route (ENR) and Aerodromes (AD). ENR 1.4 details the types of airspace classes they chose to adopt from classes A through G.

The airspace over the USA, per ENR 1.4, contains the following two categories of airspace or airspace areas:

(1) Regulatory (Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, restricted, and prohibited areas) and

(2) Non regulatory (military operations areas (MOAs), warning areas, alert areas, controlled firing areas (CFAs), and National Security Areas (NSAs).

Within these two categories there are four types:

(1) Controlled (A, B, C, D, E);

(2) Uncontrolled (G);

(3) Special Use; and

(4) Other airspace.

National Airspace System Status – Dashboard

The Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge (PHAK), Chapter 15 explains in more detail.

Photo from FAA PHAK, Chapter 15

FAA Restricted Airspace – Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA)

The Washington D.C. Metropolitan Area Special Flight Rules Area (DC SFRA) is roughly a circular area with a 30 nautical mile (about 33 statute miles) radius around Washington, D.C., and surrounds the Flight-Restricted Zone (FRZ). The Leesburg Executive Airport is located on the boundary of the SFRA. The Leesburg Maneuvering Area was developed to ease access into and out of Leesburg airport. The current Code of Federal Regulations detail proper procedures to access the area. Flight exercise operations at non-controlled tower airports within the SFRA (but not within the DC FRZ) must be conducted in accordance with 14 CFR section 93.339 (C).

There are a number of requirements for aircraft flying within the SFRA:

• Pilots must obtain an advanced clearance from FAA air traffic control to fly within, into, or out of the SFRA.
• Aircraft flying within the SFRA must have an altitude-encoding transponder and it must be operating.
• FAA air traffic control must assign a four-digit number that identifies the aircraft by call sign or registration number when it gives a pilot clearance to fly in the SFRA.
• While flying within the SFRA, the pilot must be in direct contact with air traffic control unless cleared to the local airport traffic advisory frequency.

The Flight-Restricted Zone (FRZ) extends approximately 15 nautical miles (about 17 statute miles) around Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. The airport is located in Arlington County, VA, four miles from downtown Washington, D.C.  The FRZ has been in effect since September 11, 2001.

The only non-governmental flights allowed within the FRZ without a waiver are scheduled commercial flights into and out of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. Airlines operating charter flights that support the U.S. government may land at Joint Base Andrews Air Force Base or Ronald Reagan Washington National Airports without a waiver and under certain conditions per FDC NOTAM 8/3032.

Certain general aviation flights may be authorized to fly within the FRZ.

Waiver applications and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) authorizations

Pilots who have been vetted by the TSA are allowed to fly in and out of the three Maryland general aviation airports. Other commercial air carrier flights can be vectored into the FRZ by air traffic controllers. Some approved news and traffic-reporting aircraft are allowed to operate under certain conditions within the FRZ. Contact TSA Maryland Three Program mdthree@tsa.dhs.gov for any questions.

Prohibited Area 56 (P-56) – P-56A & B – are prohibited areas surrounding the White House, the National Mall, and the vice president’s residence in Washington, D.C. The only aircraft that are allowed to fly within these prohibited areas are specially authorized flights that are in direct support of the U.S. Secret Service, the Office of the President, or one of several government agencies with missions that require air support within P-56. These prohibited areas have been in effect for about 50 years.

P-56A covers approximately the area west of the Lincoln Memorial (Rock Creek Park) to east of the Capitol (Stanton Square) and between Independence Avenue and K Street up to 18,000 feet.

P-56B covers a small circle with a radius of about one nautical mile (about 1.2 statute miles) surrounding the Naval Observatory on Massachusetts Avenue up to 18,000 feet.

Visual Warning System for the SFRA – In some situations, NORAD (the North American Aerospace Defense Command) uses a warning signal to communicate with pilots who fly into the SFRA or FRZ without authorization. The signal uses highly focused red and green lights in an alternating red/ red/green signal pattern. This signal is directed at specific aircraft suspected of making unauthorized entry into the SFRA/FRZ that are on a heading or flight path that may be interpreted as a threat, or that operate contrary to the operating rules for the SFRA/FRZ.

The beam will not injure the eyes of pilots, aircrews or passengers, regardless of altitude or distance from the source.

If pilots are in communication with air traffic control and this signal is directed at their aircraft, they are advised to immediately tell air traffic control that they are being illuminated by a visual-warning signal. If this signal is directed at a pilot who is not communicating with air traffic control, that pilot should turn to a heading away from the center of the FRZ/SFRA as soon as possible and immediately contact air traffic control on an appropriate frequency. If a pilot is unsure of the frequency, he or she should contact air traffic control on VHF guard frequency 121.5 or UHF guard 243.0.

Failure to follow these procedures may result in interception by military aircraft and/or the use of force. This applies to all aircraft operating within the SFRA, including Department of Defense, law enforcement, and aeromedical operations.

FAASTeam Course ALC-405 – Free course

Drones and Space Launches

It is worth noting that the Armed Forces follow Title 10 of the US Code, and military UAS integration occurs with other government departments.

History of UAS Laws

2012 – Congress passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act (FMRA) of 2012, PL 112-95. Section 333 of PL 112-95 directed the Secretary of Transportation to determine whether UAS operations posing the least amount of public risk and no threat to national security could safely be operated in the NAS and, if so, to establish requirements for the safe operation of these systems in the NAS.

2016 – Congress enacted the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act (FESSA) which amended the definition of an SUAS and provided for numerous security, R&D, and usage provisions. It also introduced the concept of remotely identifying operators of UA, as well as gave birth to what we now know as the Special Governmental Interest (SGI) process for expediting approvals for emergency response operations.

2016 – As part of its ongoing efforts to integrate UAS operations in the NAS and in accordance with Section 333, the FAA issued a final rule adding part 107, integrating civil small UAS into the NAS. Part 107 allows small UAS operations for many different purposes without requiring airworthiness certification, exemption, or a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA).

2018 – The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 repealed the Special Rule for Model Aircraft of FMRA 2012 and replaced it with the Exception for limited recreational operations; and also repealed Section 333 of FMRA 2012 and replaced it with a risk-based approach under Section 44807. However, those rules under Part 107 did not permit SUA operations at night or over people without a waiver. Section 2209 of FESSA was again mentioned in this act.

2019 – The FAA issued a notice of proposed rule making (NPRM) titled Operation of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems over People, which proposed to modify these regulations to permit routine operations of SUA over people and at night under certain conditions. The FAA received over 900 comments to the NPRM by the closing of the comment period on April 15, 2019. The Operation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Over People final rule was the next incremental step towards further integration of UA in the NAS. The final rule allows routine operations over people and routine operations at night under certain circumstances. The rule will eliminate the need for typical operations to receive individual part 107 certificate of waivers from the FAA. The rule was published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2021. Corrections to the final rule were published in the Federal Register on March 10, 2021, delaying the effective date from March 16, 2021, to April 21, 2021.

Safety and security are top priorities for the FAA and remote identification (remote ID) of drones is crucial to this integration effort. Remote ID is the ability in flight to provide identification and location information that can be received by other parties. Remote ID helps the FAA, law enforcement, and other federal agencies find the control station when a drone appears to be flying in an unsafe manner or where it is not allowed to fly. Remote ID also lays the foundation of the safety and security groundwork needed for more complex drone operations. The final rule was published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2021, with an original effective date of March 16, 2021. Corrections made to the rule and published in the Federal Register on March 10, 2021, delayed the effective date to April 21, 2021.

Almost all the final rule on remote ID became effective April 21, 2021. The subpart covering the process for FRIA applications from community-based organizations and educational institutions became effective September 16, 2022. Drone manufacturers must comply with the final rule’s requirements by September 16, 2022.

By September 16, 2023, all drone pilots must meet the operating requirements of 14 CFR Part 89, For most operators, this means flying a Standard Remote ID Drone, equipping with a broadcast module, or flying at a FRIA.

2024 – Section 2209 of FESSA has been amended by

FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016 [Public Law 114–190] [As Amended Through P.L. 118–63, Enacted May 16, 2024]

2024 – H.R.3935 – Securing Growth and Robust Leadership in American Aviation Act – also known as the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 – was enacted, reauthorizing the FAA through FY2028, including activities and programs related to airport planning and development, facilities and equipment, and operations. The NTSB is also reauthorized through FY2028. The bill also addresses a wide range of issues. For example, the bill

• directs the FAA to increase air traffic controller hiring targets;
• establishes a workforce development program to support the education, recruitment, and retention of aviation professionals;
• establishes an FAA Ombudsman to coordinate the response to submissions of inquiries or objections relating to issues such as aircraft certifications and registrations, pilot certificates, and operational approvals, waivers, or exemptions;
• raises the commercial airline pilot retirement age to 67 (currently 65);
• prohibits aircraft dispatchers from working remotely, with limited exceptions for emergencies;
• requires the DOT to establish standards to ensure the aircraft boarding and deplaning process is accessible for individuals with disabilities, including for individuals who use wheelchairs;
• requires DOT to establish a policy directing certain air carriers to seat a young child next to an accompanying adult if adjacent seats are available without charging an additional fee;
• prohibits the FAA from requiring mask wearing or COVID-19 vaccines for passengers, air carrier employees, or FAA employees;
• requires the FAA to issue rules to update the requirements for testing and operating unmanned aircraft (i.e., drones), including for drones operating beyond the visual line of sight; and
• requires the FAA to issue rules for certifying pilots for powered-lift aircraft (i.e., capable of vertical takeoff and landing) and operational rules for powered-lift aircraft.

Key highlights of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024:

Not later than December 31, 2025, the Administrator shall operationalize all of the key programs under the NextGen program as described in the deployment plan of the FAA. The NextGen Office of the FAA shall terminate on December 31, 2025.

Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, any advanced air mobility relevant functions, duties, and responsibilities of the NAS Systems Engineering and Integration Office or other offices within the Office of NextGen of the FAA shall be incorporated into the Office of Aviation Safety of the FAA.

There is established within the Administration a technology center to support the advancement of aerospace safety and innovation which shall be known as the‘William J. Hughes Technical Center for Advanced Aerospace’ (in this subsection referred to as the ‘Technical Center’) that shall be used by the Administrator and, as permitted by the Administrator, other governmental entities, academia, and the aerospace industry. (They received a Director and a new list of duties)

On January 1, 2026, the Administrator shall establish within the FAA an Airspace Modernization Office (in this section referred to as the ‘‘Office’’). The Administrator may task an existing office of the FAA with the functions of the Office.

SEC. 424. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON IMPROVING UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM STAFFING AT FAA. It is the sense of Congress that the Administrator should leverage the Unmanned Aircraft System Collegiate Training Initiative (ERAU is part of the UAS-CTI) to address any staffing challenges and skills gaps within the FAA to support efforts to facilitate the safe integration of unmanned aircraft systems and other new airspace entrants into the national airspace system.

Drone Regulations Today

The FAADroneZone is the FAA’s official website for managing your drones whether you fly for recreation, education, government, or business. You use this to register, apply for waivers and airspace authorizations, get recognized as a community-based organization, submit an accident report, among other things.

Regulations may be found on the FAA UAS Web Pages.

Penalties, under Administrative Law, for violating these regulations may be found in FAA Order 2150.3 FAA Compliance and Enforcement Program

With respect to drone operator documents, drone operators flying in the NAS are required to show certain documents to law enforcement, the NTSB, the TSA, and the FAA upon request. The rules governing the particular flight and the official making the request determine what documents a drone pilot must present.

A recreational flyer operating in accordance with 49 USC § 44809 is required to show their drone registration and proof of TRUST completion to law enforcement upon request. These requirements are listed in 49 USC § 44809 paragraphs (a)(7) and (a)(8). They are not required to show photo identification or airspace authorization to law enforcement.

A remote pilot operating in accordance with 14 CFR part 107 must provide their remote pilot certificate, drone registration, and photo identification upon request from law enforcement. These requirements are listed in 14 CFR §107.7.

2024 – NPRM – Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of a Renewal of an Information Collection: Operational Waivers for Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems

The FAA is seeing increased complexity of small UAS operation flying under 14 CFR part 107.

Under 14 CFR 107.205, operators of small UAS continue to request waivers from certain operational rules.

In 2018, the FAA updated and modernized the process for applying for such waivers by introducing the FAADroneZone website.

These improvements have facilitated the process of collecting and submitting the information required as part of a waiver application.

In 2021, recognizing the demand to expedite the integration of UAS into the NAS, the FAA revised the regulatory framework for safely integrating UAS into routine NAS operations.

This was accomplished by publishing the “Operation of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Over People” rule in January, 2021, which permitted routine operations of small UA over people and at night under certain conditions.

This change significantly decreased the waiver requests for such operations by over 55%.

The reporting burdens for operational waiver applications are currently covered by Information Collection Request (ICR) 2120–0768.

As part of this effort, the FAA is renewing this ICR, for operational waiver applications only.

In order to process operational waiver requests, the FAA requires the operator’s name, the operator’s contact information, and information related to the date, place, and time of the requested small UAS operation.

Additional information is required related to the proposed waiver and any necessary mitigations.

The FAA will use the requested information to determine if the proposed UAS operation can be conducted safely.

This information is necessary for the FAA to meet its statutory mandate of maintaining a safe and efficient national airspace. See 49 U.S.C. 40103, 44701 and 44807.

The FAA recognizes 4 kinds of drone flyer

Registration and Remote ID

Register your drone at FAA DroneZone either under part 107 or the Exception for Recreational Flyers

Not sure what kind of a drone flyer you are? Check out User Identification Tool or visit Getting Started webpage

Remote ID was supposed to begin September 16 2023 but… on September 13, 2023 the FAA released FAA Extends Remote ID Enforcement Date Six Months – Drone pilots who are unable to comply with the broadcast requirement of the Remote ID Rule will now have until March 16, 2024, to equip their aircraft. After that date, operators could face fines and suspension or revocation of pilot certificates. In making this decision, the FAA recognizes the unanticipated issues that some operators are experiencing finding some remote identification broadcast modules. Federal Register – Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft; Delay

Drone manufacturers had until September 16, 2022 to produce drones with built-in standard remote ID. View Remote ID for Industry. The FAA also encourages the early production of remote ID broadcast modules.

14 CFR Part 48 – Registration and Marking for Small UAS

The FAA publishes the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to make readily available to the aviation community the regulatory requirements placed upon them.

14 CFR Part 48 – Registration and Marking Requirements for Small Unmanned Aircraft

14 CFR Part 89 – Remote ID of UA

AC 89-1 – Means of Compliance Process for Remote ID of UA

AC 89-2 – Declaration of Compliance Process for Remote ID of UA

The FAA issues Advisory Circulars (AC) to inform the aviation public in a systematic way of nonregulatory material.

AC 89-3 – FAA-Recognized Identification Areas (FRIAs)

FAA-Recognized Identification Areas (FRIAs)

If your drone doesn’t have Remote ID, you may be able to operate within a FAA-Recognized Identification Area (FRIA).

A FRIA is a defined geographic area where drones can be flown without Remote ID equipment.

Both the drone and the pilot must be located within the FRIA’s boundaries throughout the operation.

In addition, the pilot of the drone must be able to see it at all times throughout the duration of the flight.

If a drone is equipped with Standard Remote ID, it may not be disabled or shut off while flying in a FRIA.

The FAA publishes the locations of approved FRIAs on the FAA’s UAS Data Delivery Service (UDDS) website

Only FAA-recognized Community Based Organizations (CBOs) and educational institutions such as primary and secondary schools, trade schools, colleges, and universities are eligible to request the establishment of a FRIA.

FRIA approvals are valid for 48 calendar months and can be renewed.

FRIA applications are accepted through the FAA’s DroneZone website
1.    Create an account, or log into your existing account.
2.    Click “Add a Service” from the FAA DroneZone Services screen.
3.    Click “Select FRIA Service” followed by the “Add Service” button.
4.    Launch the FRIA dashboard and then confirm your profile.
5.    Click “Create a FRIA Application” from the FRIA dashboard.
6.    Complete and submit the FRIA application.
The FAA cannot provide an estimated timeline on application review.

For further guidance on the FRIA application, read Advisory Circular 89-3.

For additional information on FRIA, read 14 CFR Part 89.

Community Based Organizations (CBOs) that meet the statutory definition in Section 44809(h) of the Exception for Limited Recreational Operations of Unmanned Aircraft, may apply for FAA recognition:

• Described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
• Exempt from tax under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
• Mission of which is demonstrably the furtherance of model aviation;
• Provide a comprehensive set of safety guidelines for all aspects of model aviation;
• Provide programming and support for any local charter organizations, affiliates, or clubs; and
• Provide assistance and support in the development and operation of locally designated model aircraft flying sites

Recreational drone flyers must use FAA-recognized CBO safety guidelines to meet the statutory requirement of Section 44809(a)(2).

However, recreational flyers are not required to become members of a CBO.

FAA-recognized CBOs are eligible to apply for fixed sites, CBO sponsored events and FAA Recognized Identification Areas (FRIAs).

For more information on how to become an FAA-recognized CBO, read Advisory Circular 91-57C.

Organizations seeking FAA recognition must apply through the FAA’s DroneZone.

FAA-recognized CBOs

• Academy of Model Aeronautics
• First Person View Freedom Coalition
• Flite Test Community Association
• STEM+C Inc.

FAA Order 8040.6A – UAS Safety Risk Management (SRM) Policy

AC 90-48E – Pilots’ Role in Collision Avoidance

The FAA issues Advisory Circulars (AC) to inform the aviation public in a systematic way of nonregulatory material.

Unless incorporated into a regulation by reference, the contents of an AC are not binding on the public. ACs are not mandatory and do not constitute a regulation. The contents do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way, and the document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.

Advisory Circulars are issued in a numbered subject system corresponding to the subject areas of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

The FAA has issued AC 90-48E  – Pilots’ Role in Collision Avoidance to:

• assist pilots with their regulatory obligation to see and avoid other aircraft
• alert pilots to human contributors to midair collisions and near midair collisions (NMAC)
• recommend improvements to pilot education, operating practices, procedures, and improved scanning techniques to reduce midair conflicts
• Specifics to UAS pilots are as follows:
  • Section 11.1.5 Avoiding Collisions With Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS).
  • Pilots should remain vigilant of UAS at or below 400 feet in uncontrolled airspace and at all times in visual meteorological conditions (VMC).
  • All pilots should remain vigilant of all aircraft if they are able to see them, and take measures to avoid them.

InFO 18001 – Reflective Vests

The FAA publishes All Information for Operators (InFOs).

An InFO contains valuable information for operators that should help them meet certain administrative, regulatory, or operational requirements with relatively low urgency or impact on safety.

2018 – FAA published InFO 18001, Use of Reflective Vests by Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) Remote Pilots

• serves to inform sUAS remote pilots on techniques for clearly identifying themselves to the general public
• to help bolster public awareness of sUAS operations and reduce the number of distractions for remote pilots and others participating in sUAS operations
• FAA recommends remote pilots in command, anyone operating the flight controls of the sUAS, visual observers, and any other person providing assistance in the sUAS operation wear brightly colored and reflective vests during flight operations
• vest should have wording on the back identifying the individual as the remote pilot, visual observer, or other person involved in the sUAS operation
• vests should have wording such as “Drone Pilot Please Do Not Disturb”, “Drone Pilot Stand Clear”, “Drone Pilot”, “Designated Visual Observer” or similar for purposes of identification and to caution against distraction
• vest as described above is easily distinguishable and often used by other safety-centric personnel such as construction and utility workers, airport ground crews, and railway personnel
• vest may reduce the likelihood someone will approach or query a person involved in sUAS operations
• their use does not negate the need to respond to requests from law enforcement in an urgent manner
• Title 49 USC 44103(d) requires operators of aircraft (to include UAS) to make available for inspection a certificate of registration for the aircraft when requested by a United States Government, State, or local law enforcement officer
• Operators must heed law enforcement requests for documentation and should abide by other requests from law enforcement officials

Type Certification of Certain UAS

2020 – FAA published Type Certification of Certain Unmanned Aircraft Systems, a policy for the type certification of certain unmanned aircraft systems as a special class of aircraft that went into effect the same day.

This policy does not have the force and effect of law and is not meant to bind the public in any way.

This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.

In 2012, Congress passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-95).

Section 332 of Public Law 112-95 (codified at 49 U.S.C. 44802) directed the FAA to develop a comprehensive plan to safely accelerate the integration of UAS into the NAS.

As part of that plan, the FAA issued the Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems final rule (81 FR 42064, June 28, 2016), which added 14 CFR part 107 to the FAA’s regulations in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

The FAA establishes airworthiness criteria and issues type certificates to ensure the safe operation of aircraft in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 44701(a) and 44704.

Section 44704 requires the Administrator to find an aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance is properly designed and manufactured, performs properly, and meets the regulations and minimum standards prescribed under section 44701(a) before issuing a type certificate for it.

14 CFR part 21 contains the FAA’s procedural requirements for airworthiness and type certification.

When the FAA promulgated part 21 as part of its re-codification to combine and streamline the Civil Air Regulations, it originally required applicants for a type certificate to show that the product met existing airworthiness standards (29 FR 14562, October 24, 1964).

Existing airworthiness standards for aircraft and other products, issued as a separate part of the FAA’s regulations, are:

• Normal category airplanes under 14 CFR part 23
• Transport category airplanes under 14 CFR part 25
• Normal category rotorcraft under 14 CFR part 27
• Transport category rotorcraft under 14 CFR part 29
• Manned free balloons under 14 CFR part 31
• Aircraft engines under 14 CFR part 33
• Propellers under 14 CFR part 35

Part 107 sets forth rules for the operation of small UAS that do not require FAA airworthiness certification.

UAS weighing 55 pounds or more and small UAS operating outside the limitations imposed by part 107 must receive airworthiness certification, a waiver, or an exemption as appropriate.

The FAA subsequently amended part 21 to add procedural requirements for the issuance of type certificates for special classes of aircraft (52 FR 8040, March 13, 1987).

In the final rule (amendment 21-60), the FAA explained that it intended the special class category to include, in part, those aircraft that would be eligible for a standard airworthiness certificate but for which certification standards do not exist due to their unique, novel, or unusual design features.

The FAA further stated that the “decision to type certificate an aircraft in either the special class aircraft category or under… the FAR is entirely dependent upon the aircraft’s unique, novel, and/or unusual design features.” (52 FR 8041).

Specifically, the final rule (amendment 21-60) revised § 21.17(b) to include the certification procedure for special classes of aircraft.

For special classes of aircraft, for which airworthiness standards have not been issued, the applicable airworthiness requirements will be the portions of those existing standards contained in parts 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, and 35 found by the FAA to be appropriate for the aircraft and applicable to a specific type design, or such airworthiness criteria as the FAA may find provide an equivalent level of safety to those parts.

An “unmanned aircraft” is an aircraft operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft. See 49 U.S.C. 44801(11); 14 CFR 1.1.

Unmanned aircraft include all classes of airplanes, rotorcraft, and powered-lift aircraft.

Many UAS elements, while essential for safe operation, are part of the UAS system but are not permanent features of the unmanned aircraft. For example, instead of traditional landing gear with wheels and brakes, many UAS have a launch and recovery system. Additionally, because the pilot is not situated within the aircraft, unique configurations and applications of airframes, powerplants, fuels, and materials are possible and can result in flight characteristics different from those of conventional aircraft. These features specific to UAS are the very unique, novel, and/or unusual features the special class category was designed to accommodate.

A notice of policy and request for comments regarding the type certification of certain UAS was published in the Federal Register on February 3, 2020 (85 FR 5905). The public comment period for the notice closed on March 4, 2020. The notice proposed that some UAS with no occupants onboard may be type certificated as a special class of aircraft under § 21.17(b). The notice also proposed that for airplane and rotorcraft designs, when appropriate, the FAA may still issue type certificates under § 21.17(a).

The FAA has determined that some UAS may be type certificated as a “special class” of aircraft under § 21.17(b). The FAA will issue type certificates for UAS with no occupants onboard under the process in § 21.17(b). However, the FAA may still issue type certificates under § 21.17(a) for airplane and rotorcraft UAS designs where the airworthiness standards in part 23, 25, 27 or 29, respectively, are appropriate for the certification basis. This policy applies only to the procedures for the type certification of UAS, and is not intended to establish policy impacting other FAA rules pertaining to unmanned aircraft, such as operations, pilot certification, or maintenance.

The FAA will seek public comment on the particularized airworthiness criteria for each applicant as certification standards for this new special class evolve.

Once generally applicable standards are identified, the FAA may conduct rulemaking.

The FAA’s part 107 rulemaking on small UAS was only the first step in the FAA’s plan to integrate UAS into the NAS.

Many long-term activities are required for full integration of present and future UAS operations, which will include the delivery of packages and transportation of people.

The UAS affected by this policy will include those used for package delivery.

Future FAA activity, through either further policy or rulemaking, will address type certification for UAS carrying occupants.

FAA Order 8130.34D – Airworthiness Certification of UAS and OPA

FAA orders and notices are issued by the FAA as guidance material for FAA personnel.

While FAA personnel are the primary audience for orders/notices, the aviation industry may use orders/notices as reference and the general public may find particular orders/notices of interest.

2017 – Order 8130.34D – Airworthiness Certification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems and Optionally Piloted Aircraft

• Establishes procedures for issuing special airworthiness certificates in the experimental category to UAS, optionally piloted aircraft (OPA), and aircraft intended to be flown as either a UAS or an OPA under the designation “OPA/UAS”
• Establishes procedures for issuing special flight permits to UAS for the purpose of production flight testing
• Procedures in this order apply to FAA aviation safety inspectors (ASI) and private persons delegated authority to issue special airworthiness certificates

Commercial Drone Rules

If you have a small drone that is less than 55 pounds, you can fly for work or business by following the Part 107 guidelines.

First use the FAA user identification tool

Some operations will require a waiver

You can become an FAA-Certified Drone Pilot by Passing the Knowledge Test

To be eligible to get your Remote Pilot Certificate, you must be:

• At least 16 years old
• Able to read, write, speak, and understand English
• Be in a physical and mental condition to safely fly a UAS

Review Knowledge Test Suggested Study Materials provided by the FAA

Create an Integrated Airman Certification and Rating Application (IACRA) profile prior to registering for the knowledge test

Take the Knowledge Test at an FAA-approved Knowledge Testing Center

Once you’ve passed your test, for a remote pilot certificate (FAA Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application) login the FAA Integrated Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application system (IACRA) to complete FAA form 8710-13

Review the full process to get your Remote Pilot Certificate

Register your Drone with the FAA

You should become familiar with:

Title 14 – Aeronautics and Space

Part 107 Waivers Issued

BVLOS – Obstruction Shielding Waivers

Tactical BVLOS Waivers

SGI – Special Government interest Waivers

2024 – Parachute-Equipped Drones Can Fly Over Crowds

The following is a list of the 6 categories of airspace access approval and the process used in the approval of that access.

1. Section 44809 – which addresses operations by recreational operators. Operations in the NAS are restricted to at or below 400 ft AGL in Class G airspace and controlled airspace based on pre-coordinated approval through the FAA LAANC Smart Application program.
2. 14 CFR Part 107 – for civil and commercial operations not allowed under the 14 CFR Part 107 rule or LAANC Smart Application for controlled airspace, applicant applies in the FAA Drone Zone web Portal for specific airspace authorization.
3. 44807 Exemption – Exemption holder received generic blanket COA for operations in class G at or below 400 ft AGL. For operations not covered under the blanket Class G COA, applicant applies for COA within the COA Online Application Processing System (CAPS) Online Portal.
4. Experimental Category – The COA in support of the Operating Limitations document issued by the CMS, is issued through coordination with the FAA Air Traffic Policy office who coordinates with the 3 Air Traffic Operational Support Group Service Centers for the processing of the COA.
5. Public Aircraft Operations – the Public Agency applies for the approved COA within the COA Online Application Processing system (CAPS) online portal.
6. Type Certificated Aircraft – The applicant applies for the approved COA within the COA Online Application Processing system (CAPS) online portal.

14 CFR Part 107 – Small UAS

The FAA publishes the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to make readily available to the aviation community the regulatory requirements placed upon them.

14 CFR Part 107 – Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)

AC 107-2A – Small UAS

The FAA issues Advisory Circulars (AC) to inform the aviation public in a systematic way of nonregulatory material.

Unless incorporated into a regulation by reference, the contents of an AC are not binding on the public. ACs are not mandatory and do not constitute a regulation. The contents do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way, and the document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.

Advisory Circulars are issued in a numbered subject system corresponding to the subject areas of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

AC 107-2A – Small UAS

14 CFR Part 11 – General Rulemaking Procedures

The FAA publishes the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to make readily available to the aviation community the regulatory requirements placed upon them.

14 CFR Part 11 – when a waiver to 14 CFR part 107 won’t work, then a Part 11 exemption may!

A petition for exemption is a request to the FAA by an individual or entity for relief from the requirements of a regulation in 14 CFR.

The FAA may grant an exemption if it is in public interest and provides an equivalent level of safety. See, 49 U.S.C. § 44701(f) and 14 CFR § 11.81(e).

A petition for rulemaking is a request by an individual or entity to the FAA Administrator requesting that the FAA adopt, amend, or repeal a regulation (14 CFR § 11.71).

Regulations governing the rulemaking process can be found in 14 CFR Part 11

Section 44807: Special Authority for Certain Unmanned Aircraft Systems

The Small UAS Rule (14 CFR Part 107) is only applicable to UA that weigh less than 55 pounds at takeoff.

Not only is there a max weight, but there’s also a limitation to what rules can be waived under Part 107.

To fly an unmanned aircraft that exceeds the maximum weight limit of Part 107 or your mission includes a non-waiverable rule, you may apply for an exemption in accordance with 14 CFR Part 11 and  the Congressional authority granted in Special Authority for Certain Unmanned Systems, 49 U.S.C. §44807.

49 U.S.C. § 44807 grants the Secretary of Transportation the authority to use a risk-based approach to determine if certain UAS may operate safely in the NAS on a case-by-case basis.

This grants UAS operators safe and legal entry into the NAS, thus improving safety.

The FAA Administrator has identified this as a high priority project to address demand for civil operation of drones for commercial purposes.

BVLOS and Proposed 14 CFR Part 108

2023 – FAA published a request for comments on UAS Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) operations and proposed exemptions for BVLOS operations for Phoenix Air Unmanned, uAvionix, UPS Flight Forward, and Zipline. 

They also published an overarching notice requesting feedback from the community UAS BVLOS operations.

The request sought comments on specific aspects of BVLOS drone operations that the concurrent exemption petitions are looking to permit, including detect and avoid, UTM, and shielded operations.

The data collected from the notices and their operations will inform the FAA’s policy and rulemaking activities.

It is FAA’s goal to use these exemptions to signal what the Agency is planning for its final rulemaking on BVLOS.

While the Agency works toward a final BVLOS rulemaking, FAA’s goal is to template exemptions so that approvals will be streamlined for operators seeking to conduct similar operations at similar risk levels.

The end product will be the safe integration of drones as a transport category into the NAS.

BVLOS operations are an essential component of maximizing the value that the aviation industry generates as its economic impact expands beyond today’s operations to more personalized transportation, delivery, and other services.  

Making progress on drone operational integration will spur investment into the drone industry, including manufacturing and workforce development in the United States. 

The FAA’s Request for Comment is a key step forward in enabling BVLOS operations and reducing barriers for successful integration.

The FAA publishes the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to make readily available to the aviation community the regulatory requirements placed upon them.

Part 108 – New Drone Regulations Proposed to the FAA

BVLOS ARC Report Summary – Recommendations and Proposed Regulatory Changes

The BVLOS Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) started their work on June 24th, 2021, with an objective to propose new drone flight rules to the FAA in order to enable operations outside of a remote pilot’s visual line of sight.

The full report, published on March 10th, 2021, includes 70 recommendations as well as a brand new proposed CFR Part 108.

The representatives included a diverse range of individuals and companies including Amazon Prime Air, Wing, Helicopter Associations, and other Aviation Organizations.

NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act – should be consulted whenever their may be environmental impact.

UAS BVLOS Operations NPRM on the Federal Register – comments closed 6/14/2023

Workforce Development

According to McKinsey & Company, the world of work is changing.

Artificial intelligence and automation will make this shift as significant as the mechanization in prior generations of agriculture and manufacturing.

While some jobs will be lost, and many others created, almost all will change.

The COVID-19 crisis accelerated existing trends and caused organizations to reevaluate many aspects of work.

This regularly updated collection of articles draws together their latest perspectives on the future of work, workforce, and workplace.

Recreational Drone Rules

The rule for operating UAS under 55 pounds in the NAS is 14 CFR 107.

However, if you want to fly your UAS for purely recreational purposes, there is a limited statutory exception (“carve out”) that provides a basic set of requirements.

A recreational flight is one that is not operated for a business or any form of compensation.

However, financial compensation, or the lack of it, is not what determines if the flight is recreational or commercial.

Non-recreational purposes include things like taking photos to help sell a property or service, roof inspections, or taking pictures of a high school football game for the school’s website.

Goodwill or other non-monetary value can also be considered indirect compensation.

This would include things like volunteering to use your UAS to survey coastlines on behalf of a non-profit organization.

Recreational flight is simply flying for fun or personal enjoyment.

The Exception for Limited Operation of Unmanned Aircraft (49 USC 44809) or “carve out” is the law that describes how, when, and where you can fly UAS for recreational purposes.

Following these rules will keep people, your drone, and the NAS safe:

1. Fly only for recreational purposes (personal enjoyment).
2. Follow the safety guidelines of an FAA-recognized Community Based Organization (CBO). Read AC 91-57C.
3. Keep your drone within your visual line of sight or use a VO who is co-located (physically next to) and in direct communication with you.
4. Give way to and do not interfere with manned aircraft.
5. Fly at or below 400 feet in controlled airspace (Class B, C, D, and surface E designated for an airport) only with prior authorization by using LAANC or FAADroneZone.
6. Fly at or below 400 feet in Class G (uncontrolled) airspace.
7. Take The Recreational UAS Safety Test (TRUST) and carry proof of test passage.
8. Have a current registration, mark your drones on the outside with the registration number, and carry proof of registration with you. If your drone requires an FAA registration number it will be also required to broadcast Remote ID information.
9. Do not operate your drone in a dangerous manner.
10. Do not interfere with emergency response or law enforcement activities.
11. Do not fly under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Individuals violating any of these rules, and/or operating in a dangerous manner, may be subject to FAA enforcement action.

As of February 20, 2023, Recreational Flyers may request an airspace authorization to operate in controlled airspace at night through LAANC.

As a recreational flyer you can fly in controlled airspace if you have an airspace authorization from the FAA prior to flight through LAANC  or the FAA’s Drone Zone.

In LAANC enabled areas authorizations are provided to drone pilots through companies approved by the FAA.

These companies are known as FAA-Approved UAS Service Suppliers (FAA LAANC USSs).

The companies have built desktop and mobile applications through which drone pilots submit their authorization request and receive other safety critical information related to their flight.

The companies provide near-real time airspace authorizations at pre-approved altitudes on the UAS Facility Maps.

All companies provide information about the maximum altitude you can fly in a specific location and whether or not your flight is in controlled or uncontrolled airspace.

Follow these steps to get approval to fly through LAANC:

– Register your drone

– Take The Recreational UAS Safety Test (TRUST).

– Apply on the date you wish to fly (requests may be submitted up to 90 days in advance of your planned flight).

– Select the exact time, altitude and location where you wish to fly. Make sure you select to fly at or below the altitude defined by the UAS Facility Maps (this will show up automatically in your LAANC provide app).

FAA Drone Zone provides authorizations for airports that are not LAANC-enabled, however it does not provide authorizations in near-real time.

All requests are processed manually at the FAA Air Traffic Service Centers.

Only apply for authorization at or below approved altitudes on the UAS Facility Maps.

Airspace Authorization through FAA Drone Zone:

– Log into the FAA Drone Zone under The Exception for Recreational Flyers.

– Select “Airspace Authorization”.

– Fill in the required fields – Review and submit your information to the FAA.

– Upon submission you will receive a reference number for your application.

– You may check you application status anytime by logging back into the FAA DroneZone.

– If you have questions while filling out the request, contact the UAS Support Center.

On August 7, 2023, the FAA released Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Continued Approval of Information Collection: Limited Recreational Unmanned Aircraft Operation Applications – Comments closed 10-6-2023

AC 91-57C – Exception for Limited Recreational Operations of UA

The FAA issues Advisory Circulars (AC) to inform the aviation public in a systematic way of nonregulatory material.

Unless incorporated into a regulation by reference, the contents of an AC are not binding on the public. ACs are not mandatory and do not constitute a regulation. The contents do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way, and the document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.

Advisory Circulars are issued in a numbered subject system corresponding to the subject areas of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

AC 91-57C – Exception for Limited Recreational Operations of Unmanned Aircraft

Government and Public Safety Drone Rules

Public Safety Agencies, like Law Enforcement, are in the best position to deter, detect, and investigate unauthorized or unsafe UAS operations.

While drones can serve as a useful tool, these agencies also have an important role in protecting the public from unsafe and unauthorized drone operations.

The FAA has published information to help law enforcement and public safety professionals understand safe drone operations and their authority and thereby assist the FAA with enforcement of CFRs.

Special agents from the FAA’s Law Enforcement Assistance Program (LEAP) are the point of contact for federal, state, local, tribal, territorial and international law enforcement agencies.

LEAP special agents can provide information on drone enforcement and registration matters.

Providing a LEAP special agent with reports of suspected unauthorized UAS incidents in a timely manner increases the FAA’s ability to take enforcement action when appropriate.

Some additional resources:

DRONE RESPONSE PLAYBOOK FOR PUBLIC SAFETY

Supplement to the Drone Response Playbook for Public Safety

Navigating the Skies: The Roadmap to Implementing an Effective Unmanned Aircraft System Program

Government agencies (including Federal, State, and Tribal), law enforcement, and public safety entities have two options for operating drones under 55 pounds:

(1) Fly under 14 CFR 107 – for operations of UAS under 55 pounds at or below 400 feet AGL for visual line of sight operations.

(2) Fly under the statutory requirements for public aircraft (49 USC §40102(a) and § 40125). Operate with a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) to be able to self-certify UAS and operators for flights performing governmental functions.

To support first responders and other entities affiliated with them, the FAA can quickly issue authorizations for natural disasters and other emergency responses.

AC 00-1.1B – Public Aircraft Operations

The FAA issues Advisory Circulars (AC) to inform the aviation public in a systematic way of nonregulatory material.

Unless incorporated into a regulation by reference, the contents of an AC are not binding on the public. ACs are not mandatory and do not constitute a regulation. The contents do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way, and the document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.

Advisory Circulars are issued in a numbered subject system corresponding to the subject areas of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

The FAA issued AC 00-1.1B – Public Aircraft Operations—Manned and Unmanned to assist in determining whether government-owned or government-contracted manned and unmanned aircraft operations conducted within the territory of the US are public or civil aircraft operations under the statutory definition of “public aircraft” in Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.) §§ 40102(a)(41) and 40125 (the statute).

It contains FAA policy pertaining to civil aircraft operators that provide contract support to government entities.

The intent of this material is to better define the responsibilities of the parties to these contracts.

Educational Drone Rules

The FAA has a program designed for universities, colleges, and technical schools called the Unmanned Aircraft Systems Collegiate Training Initiative (UAS-CTI).

In this program the FAA recognizes and collaborates with institutions that prepare students for careers in UAS or drones.

The FAA has resources for educators.

The rules for flying drones are based on the purpose of the operation.

There are a few options for flying for educational purposes:

(1) There is an exception, Limited Exception for Recreational Flyers, and Community-Based Organizations (49 USC § 44809) that allows flying drones for recreational purposes (under certain conditions) without complying with Part 107. To fly under the statutory exception, you must comply with all portions of Section 44809, including flying your drone for recreational purposes.

(2) 14 CFR 107 is the primary law for flying small drones (less than 55 pounds) in the US. You can fly under 14 CFR 107 rules for many reasons, including work or business, recreation, education, or for public safety missions.

(3) There is also a statutory provision P.L. 115-254, Section 350, as amended by P.L. 116-283, Section 10002 that clarifies that education and research uses of drones for educational purposes can be operated under the rules for recreational flyers. This includes programs for institutes of higher education, programs run by JROTC, and educational programs chartered by a recognized CBO.

UAS Facility Maps

In the US, the FAA has created grid maps to assist remote pilots with navigating the complexity of airspace and associated airspace authorizations.

UAS Facility Maps show the maximum altitudes around airports where the FAA may authorize 14 CFR Part 107 operations without additional safety analysis.

The maps should be used to inform requests for 14 CFR Part 107 airspace authorizations and waivers in controlled airspace.

These maps do not authorize operations in these areas at the depicted altitudes.

They are for informational purposes only.

Operators must still apply to operate in controlled airspace, Class B, C, D, or surface area E, by completing an airspace authorization request in LAANC or the FAADroneZone or a waiver application in FAADroneZone.

Airport Data & Information Portal (ADIP)

The Airport Data and Information Portal (ADIP) helps the FAA collect airport and aeronautical data to meet the demands of the Next Generation National Airspace System.

Guided by Advisory Circulars (ACs), the Airport Sponsor or proponents are key links in the information chain.

Use the Airport Data and Information Portal to access airport data and submit changes matching defined business rules.

FAA lines of business are notified once data has been submitted and approved.

Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC)

LAANC, or Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability, is a partnership between FAA and industry.

It directly supports UAS integration into the airspace.

LAANC provides:

(1) drone pilots with access to controlled airspace at or below 400 feet

(2) awareness of where pilots can and cannot fly

(3) air traffic professionals with visibility into where and when drones will operate

Through the UAS Data Exchange, which is a collaborative approach between government and private industry facilitating the sharing of airspace data between the two parties, companies called UAS Service Suppliers (USS) provide desktop applications and mobile apps for the drone pilot.

LAANC automates the application and approval process for airspace authorizations.

The FAA also has an industry page for UAS Service Suppliers

DronePros and FAA Safety Team (FAASTeam)

DronePros are the FAA Safety Team (FAASTeam) volunteers who work closely with the FAA to promote safety in their local areas.

These volunteers are interviewed and trained by the FAA and are provided with equipment and materials to help them plan events and give presentations.

A DronePro may be able to come talk to your people or setup a flight demonstration.

The FAASTeam has an online directory.

B4UFLY App

The FAA’s B4UFLY service shows where recreational flyers can and cannot fly.

The FAA has approved four companies to provide B4UFLY services through desktop and mobile applications.

It is a free download for both iOS and Android.

B4UFLY provides situational awareness to recreational flyers and other drone users.

Airspace Restrictions – NO DRONE ZONES

There are many types of airspace restrictions in the US

• Stadiums and sporting events
• Near airports
• Security sensitive airspace restrictions (military bases, national landmarks, and critical infrastructure)
• Restricted or special use airspace
• Washington, D.C.
• Wildfires
• Hurricanes

Drone pilots are encouraged to check for temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) by checking NOTAMs

Drones are prohibited from flying over designated national security sensitive facilities.

Operations are prohibited from the ground up to 400 feet above ground level, and apply to all types and purposes of UAS flight operations.

Examples of these locations are:

• Military bases designated as Department of Defense facilities
• National landmarks – Statue of Liberty, Hoover Dam, Mt. Rushmore
• Certain critical infrastructure, such as nuclear power plants

The FAA’s UAS Data Delivery System shows a map of security sensitive airspace.

“No Drone Zones” help people identify areas where they cannot operate a UAS.

It is crucial to understand the meaning behind the sign as some identify areas where there is a TFR, whereas others only restrict taking off or landing but not overflight.

These photos, taken by the author on November 6, 2022, are typical of the No Drone Zone signage.

UAS Roadmap and ConOps

The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-95) mandated the creation and publication of a 5-year Roadmap for the FAA‘s process of developing regulations, policy, procedures, guidance material, and training requirements to support safe and efficient UAS operations in the NAS, while coordinating with relevant departments and agencies to address related key policy areas of concern such as privacy and national security.

Since 2013, the FAA has published this Roadmap for the integration of UAS into the NAS.

In the latest version (3rd edition), published in 2020, the FAA has the following to say:

This Roadmap lays out the current and projected status of many of the most complex issues the FAA and the drone community face as we work together to integrate UAS into the NAS. It touches on recent UAS accomplishments, the 2018 Reauthorization Act, the UAS IPP, other partnerships, the regulatory outlook, airspace access and management, and education and outreach efforts. As we look to the future, we must consider the challenges of remote ID implementation, c-UAS issues, UTM and AAM. The roadmap also focuses on the challenges of the pace of UAS innovation and the human element—societal acceptance. Certainly, there is a long road ahead of us. But the Roadmap tells another story, too. Here we see a path forward, through regulation and innovation, all in the service of seamless drone operation. It is the story of an Agency and Department determined to work with stakeholders to overcome obstacles, in the pursuit of the promise of an airspace system that includes manned and unmanned aircraft operating safely in the sky.

Incidentally, the DOD also has a Roadmap for 2017-2042.

In 2018, FAA NextGen Office released an initial overarching ConOps (V1.0) for UTM that presented a vision and described the associated operational and technical requirements for developing a supporting architecture and operating within a UTM ecosystem.

UTM is defined as the way the FAA will support operations for UAS operating in low altitude airspace.

UTM utilizes industry’s ability to supply services under the FAA’s regulatory authority where these services do not currently exist.

It is a community-based traffic management system, where the operators and entities providing operation support services are responsible for the coordination, execution, and management of operations, with rules of the road established by FAA.

This federated set of services enables cooperative management of operations between UAS Operators, facilitated by third-party support providers through networked information exchanges.

UTM is designed to support the demand and expectations for a broad spectrum of operations with ever-increasing complexity and risk through an innovative, competitive open market of service suppliers.

The services provided are interoperable to allow the UTM ecosystem to scale to meet the needs of the UAS operator community.

In 2022, the FAA updated this ConOps to document the continued maturation of UTM and share the vision with government and industry stakeholders.

UTM ConOps V2.0

• continues to focus on UTM operations below 400 feet AGL, but also addresses increasingly more complex operations within and across both uncontrolled (Class G) and controlled (Classes B, C, D, E) airspace environments
• updates and expands the set of operational scenarios, describing more complex operations in denser airspace, including BVLOS operations in controlled airspace
• includes updated descriptions of/approaches to several UTM components, including UAS Volume Reservations (previously referred to as Dynamic Restrictions), Performance Authorizations, data archiving and access, USS service categories, UTM/ATM contingency notification, and security aspects associated with UTM operations
• introduces new topics including Airspace Authorization for BVLOS flight within controlled airspace, UTM architecture support to remote identification of UAS operators, and standards development efforts with industry as an integral part of enabling UTM operations

FAA UTM ConOps documents do not prescribe solutions or specific implementation methods, unless for example purposes.

Rather, they describe the essential conceptual and operational elements associated with UTM operations that will serve to inform development of solutions across the many actors and stakeholders involved in implementing UTM.

They also support a spiral implementation approach – maturing the concept through analysis of more complex airspace environments, tested and validated by field demonstrations, including NASA Technology Capability Level (TCL), FAA UPP, and UAS IPP demonstrations.

Future versions will continue to be developed as needed to reflect the progress of research and continued concept maturation resulting from collaboration with the FAA, NASA, and industry partners.

Know Before You Fly

Know Before You Fly is an educational campaign that provides prospective users with the information and guidance they need to fly safely and responsibly.

The campaign is organized by the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA), the Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), and the Consumer Technology Association (CTA) in partnership with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

Please take a look at their vast array of resources.

Federal v. State v. Local Powers

State sovereignty has been a major issue in American political history.

The founders of the republic designed a federal system that established supremacy for the US government within the realm of its delegated authority while also protecting the sovereign interests of the states.

Certain powers are given to the federal government through the Constitution, and all other matters are reserved to the states through the Tenth Amendment.

This means that each state government is also a sovereign entity.

We therefore have two levels of sovereignty: the federal government and the state governments.

The US Constitution Article VI declares that federal law is the “Supreme Law of the Land.”

As a result, when a federal law conflicts with a state or local law, the federal law will supersede the other laws. This is commonly known as “preemption.”

Congress has vested the FAA with authority to regulate the areas of airspace use, management and efficiency, air traffic control, safety, navigational facilities, and aircraft noise at its source. 49 USC §§ 40103, 44502, and 44701-44735.

Congress has directed the FAA 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.” 49 USC § 40103(b)(1).

Congress has further directed the FAA to “prescribe air traffic regulations on the flight of aircraft (including regulations on safe altitudes)” for navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft; protecting individuals and property on the ground; using the navigable airspace efficiently; and preventing collision between aircraft, between aircraft and land or water vehicles, and between aircraft and airborne objects. 49 USC § 40103(b)(2).

A consistent regulatory system for aircraft and use of airspace has the broader effect of ensuring the highest level of safety for all aviation operations.

To ensure the maintenance of a safe and sound air transportation system and of navigable airspace free from inconsistent restrictions, FAA has regulatory authority over matters pertaining to aviation safety.

In 2015, to address the potential clash between federal and state and local laws, the FAA published a State and Local Regulation of UAS Fact Sheet, which has since been updated… please keep reading!

In this fact sheet the FAA was clear:

UAS are aircraft subject to regulation by the FAA to ensure safety of flight, and safety of people and property on the ground. States and local jurisdictions are increasingly exploring regulation of UAS or proceeding to enact legislation relating to UAS operations. In 2015, approximately 45 states have considered restrictions on UAS. In addition, public comments on the FAA’s proposed rule, “Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems” (Docket No. FAA-2015-0150), expressed concern about the possible impact of state and local laws on UAS operations. Incidents involving unauthorized and unsafe use of small, remote-controlled aircraft have risen dramatically. Pilot reports of interactions with suspected unmanned aircraft have increased from 238 sightings in all of 2014 to 780 through August of this year [2015]. During this past summer, the presence of multiple UAS in the vicinity of wildfires in the western US prompted firefighters to ground their aircraft on several occasions. This fact sheet is intended to provide basic information about the federal regulatory framework for use by states and localities when considering laws affecting UAS. State and local restrictions affecting UAS operations should be consistent with the extensive federal statutory and regulatory framework pertaining to control of the airspace, flight management and efficiency, air traffic control, aviation safety, navigational facilities, and the regulation of aircraft noise at its source.

In 2018 the FAA again reiterated the need for states to avoid stepping on federal toes.

Congress has provided the FAA with exclusive authority to regulate aviation safety, the efficiency of the navigable airspace, and air traffic control, among other things. State and local governments are not permitted to regulate any type of aircraft operations, such as flight paths or altitudes, or the navigable airspace. However, these powers are not the same as regulation of aircraft landing sites, which involves local control of land and zoning. Laws traditionally related to state and local police power – including land use, zoning, privacy, and law enforcement operations – generally are not subject to federal regulation. Cities and municipalities are not permitted to have their own rules or regulations governing the operation of aircraft. However, as indicated, they may generally determine the location of aircraft landing sites through their land use powers.

In 2023, the FAA released an Updated Fact Sheet (2023) on State and Local Regulation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) issued by the FAA, Office of the Chief Counsel, and the United States Department of Transportation, Office of the General Counsel, discussing legal considerations applicable to state and local regulation of UAS.

Like its 2015 predecessor, the Fact Sheet is a guide for state and local governments as they respond to the increased use of UAS in the national airspace.

Rulemaking Procedure

Agencies, like the FAA, get their authority to issue regulations, CFRs, from laws, statutes, enacted by Congress.

Congress may also pass a law that more specifically directs an agency to solve a particular problem or accomplish a certain goal.

An agency must not take action that goes beyond its statutory authority or violates the Constitution.

Agencies must follow an open public process when they issue regulations, according to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

This includes publishing a statement of rulemaking authority in the Federal Register (government website) for all proposed and final rules.

The guiding document to the rulemaking process discusses the Petition for Rulemaking, NPRM, Federal Register, Comment Period, interim rule, direct final rule, and effective date, among others.

In a nutshell, Congress mandates the FAA to create CFRs, or the FAA receives a “Petition for Rulemaking” from a member of the public.

The NPRM, drafted by the FAA is then placed on the Federal Register to notify the public and to give them an opportunity to submit comments.

The proposed rule and the public comments received on it form the basis of the final rule.

In general, the FAA will specify a comment period ranging from 30 to 60 days.

For complex rulemakings, the FAA may provide for longer time periods, like 180 days or more.

But they may also use shorter comment periods when that can be justified.

At the end of the comment period, several committees review the comments, and then a final rule is issued.

Final rules have preambles (which provide aviation attorneys like myself insight into the FAA’s thinking).

They are placed on the Federal Register together with a summary and an effective date.

Generally, the rule is effective no less than 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register.

If the agency wants to make the rule effective sooner, it must cite “good cause” (persuasive reasons) as to why this is in the public interest.

Aviation Safety Reporting Program (ASRP) for UAS

Aviation Safety Reporting Program (ASRP) for UAS includes protections offered through NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS).

This will ensure that the safety data that is collected will result in actionable information for the entire aviation community.

This ASRP enables a non-punitive avenue for anonymous reporting.

If you file a report with NASA’s ASRS, also known as a NASA report, even if a finding of a violation is made, a civil penalty or certificate suspension will not be imposed if:

(1) the violation was inadvertent and not deliberate;

(2) the violation did not involve a crime, accident of action under 49 USC § 44709;

(3) the person has not been found in any prior FAA enforcement action to have committed a violation of 49 USC Subtitle VII, or any regulation there for a period of 5 years; and

(4) the report was filed within 10 days after the violation.

UAS Integration Pilot Program (IPP)/BEYOND

A Presidential Memorandum established the UAS Integration Pilot Program (IPP) on October 25, 2017.

The US DOT instituted it as a 3-year program to enable state, local, and tribal governments, in collaboration with industry to advance more complex UAS operations in the NAS.

Under the IPP, the FAA executed Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) with 10 state, local, and tribal governments to conduct advanced UAS operations to advance safe and secure integration.

One of those participants, the Lee County Mosquito Control District in Florida, withdrew from the program in early 2019.

The 9 remaining lead participants accomplished many achievements under the IPP, and the FAA shared the relevant data and lessons learned with the appropriate policymakers and regulatory teams within the FAA and DOT to inform regulations, policy, and guidance.

The FAA concluded the IPP on October 25, 2020, as mandated by statute, and decided to continue the partnerships and progress it made under the IPP to continue to address remaining challenges.

The FAA is tackling the remaining challenges of UAS integration through a new program called BEYOND.

These challenge areas are:

(1) BVLOS operations that are repeatable, scalable, and economically viable with specific emphasis on infrastructure inspection, public operations, and small package delivery.

(2) Leveraging industry operations to better analyze and quantify the societal and economic benefits of UAS operations.

(3) Focusing on community engagement efforts to collect, analyze and address community concerns.

The BEYOND program started on October 26, 2020, to continue the partnerships with 8 of the 9 IPP participants.

The program will focus on operating under established rules rather than waivers, collecting data to develop performance-based standards, collecting and addressing community feedback and understanding the societal and community benefits, and to streamline the approval processes for UAS integration.

Integration Partnership Agreement (IPA)

The Integration Partnership Agreement (IPA) program was created as a natural evolution of the Partnership for Safety Plan (PSP).

The IPA program will continue addressing and advancing complex drone operations by establishing working relationships with industry partners to aid the full integration of drones into the NAS.

With the implementation of the IPA, the FAA will slowly phase out the PSP and once complete, allocate all resources to the new IPA program.

The IPA provides an arrangement to share mutually beneficial information, while building trust, leadership, and teamwork through a public-private relationship.

By outlining the principles and procedures for early identification of critical issues and planning, the FAA can assist IPA participants in coordinating the safety cases necessary for operational approvals, and future projects can be completed more efficiently.

One of the primary objectives of the IPA program is to provide a framework for collaboration that focuses on complex operations.

In turn, this arrangement will help further develop and normalize our review and approval processes in a way that will benefit the industry at large.

UAS Test Sites

The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA 2012) directed the FAA Administrator to initiate a 5-year program to establish 6 UAS test sites to support the FAA in integrating UAS into the NAS.

After conducting a competitive selection process, the FAA designated 6 UAS Test Sites, which became operational in 2014 and began to conduct test flights.

In 2016, the FAA added a seventh test site as mandated by the FAA Extension, Safety and Security Act of 2016 (FESSA 2016).

The following list names the 7 FAA UAS Test Sites:

(1) Griffiss International Airport, NY

(2) New Mexico State University, NM

(3) North Dakota Department of Commerce, ND

(4) State of Nevada, NV

(5) Texas A&M University Corpus Christi, TX

(6) University of Alaska Fairbanks, AK

(7) Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, VA

The main objective of the UAS Test Site Program is to provide verification of the safety of public and civil UAS, operations, and related navigation procedures before their integration into the NAS.

Other program requirements include supporting the FAA during the development of certification standards, air traffic requirements, coordinating research and other work with NASA, FAA NextGen, the DoD, and other Federal agencies.

Package Delivery by Drone (Part 135)

From 2017 through 2020, UAS IPP focused on testing and evaluating the integration of civil and public drone operations into our NAS.

This work continues under the UAS BEYOND program which focuses on the remaining challenges of UAS integration, including BVLOS operations, societal and economic benefits of UAS operations, and community engagement.

Participants in these programs are among the first to prove their concepts, including package delivery by drone through part 135 air carrier certification.

Part 135 certification is the only path for small drones to carry the property of another for compensation beyond visual line of sight.

As participants in these programs move to prove their concepts, they must use FAA’s existing Part 135 certification process, some of which FAA has adapted for drone operations by granting exemptions for rules that don’t apply to drones, such as the requirement to carry the flight manuals on board the aircraft.

All part 135 applicants must go through the full 5 phases of the certification process.

The FAA issued the first Part 135 Single pilot air carrier certificate for drone operations to Wing Aviation, LLC in April 2019. The FAA later issued Wing a Standard Part 135 air carrier certificate to operate a drone aircraft in October 2019. Wing Aviation is part of the IPP, delivering food and over-the-counter pharmaceuticals directly to homes in Christiansburg, VA.

UPS Flight Forward, Inc., another participant in the IPP, was the first company to receive a Standard Part 135 air carrier certificate to operate a drone aircraft. On September 27, 2019, UPS Flight Forward conducted its first package delivery by drone with its part 135 certification when it flew medical supplies at WakeMed hospital campus in Raleigh, NC.

Amazon, a PSP participant, is the first company to operate a drone larger than 55lbs under a standard Part 135 air carrier certificate. Amazon began commercial operations in August 2020.  They currently deliver Amazon products in Oregon and Northern California, with further expansion planned.

On June 17, 2022, Zipline became the fourth drone operator to receive a part 135 certificate to be authorized to operate as an air carrier and conduct common carriage operations. This is the first part 135 certificate issued to an operator under the BEYOND program and the first fixed wing part 135 UAS operator to be certified.

In January 2023, Flytrex’s longtime partner Causey Aviation Unmanned was granted standard part 135 Air Carrier Certification, to operate and complete long-range on-demand commercial drone deliveries in the U.S.

Agricultural drones under Part 137

FAA – Dispensing Chemicals and Agricultural Products with UAS

Notice 8900.704 – Part 137 Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Certification

14 CFR Part 11.81

14 CFR Part 137

2023 – At the FAA Drone Symposium in Baltimore, David Boulter, the FAA’s Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety (Acting), was quoted as saying the FAA announced changes to Part 137 UAS operations:

“FAA has determined that Part 137 UAS agricultural aircraft operations present a lower risk than other certificated operations and revising the part 137 certification process would not adversely affect safety.”

Boulter expanded on FAA’s work to streamline the agricultural drone process so that operators can receive certification in days, as opposed to months or years.

Part 137 operations are some of the most common exemptions because they are low-risk in rural and sparsely operated areas.

Since May 2023 and under the new process, FAA has issued 200 operator certificates and 750 exemptions to allow current exemption holders to take advantage of the new process.

The Agency is continuing to clear the backlog so that operators can take advantage of the new process this growing season.

Boulter also announced that FAA has approved Pyka Pelican Spray aircraft for agricultural operations.

Weighing over 1,000 pounds, it is the largest UAS the Agency has approved for these types of operations.

Pyka Secures FAA Authorization for Commercial Operation of Largest Ever Highly-Automated Electric Drone in the United States

UAS Traffic Management (UTM)

The FAA, NASA, other federal partner agencies, and industry are collaborating to explore concepts of operation, data exchange requirements, and a supporting framework to enable multiple BVLOS drone operations at low altitudes (under 400 feet AGL) in airspace where FAA air traffic services are not provided.

UAS Traffic Management (UTM) is a “traffic management” ecosystem for uncontrolled operations that is separate from, but complementary to, the FAA’s Air Traffic Management (ATM) system.

UTM development will ultimately identify services, roles and responsibilities, information architecture, data exchange protocols, software functions, infrastructure, and performance requirements for enabling the management of low-altitude uncontrolled drone operations.

2023 – FAA published its UTM plan.

The UTM ConOps reflects collaborative efforts across the FAA, as well as ongoing interagency efforts with NASA.

UTM Pilot Program (UPP)

Small UAS operators are continuously exercising new applications for small UAS, including goods delivery, infrastructure inspection, search and rescue, and agricultural monitoring.

There has been limited infrastructure available to manage the widespread expansion of small UAS operations within the NAS.

In response to this need, the FAA Extension, Safety and Security Act of 2016 established the UTM Pilot Program (UPP) to define an initial set of industry and FAA capabilities required to support UTM operations.

Advanced Air Mobility (AAM)

Joby AAM aircraft at NBAA Conference in Las Vegas, NV, courtesy of Preston S. Kwok (2024)

NASA is Creating an Advanced Air Mobility Playbook

NASA is building the system to make soaring over traffic in air taxis, providing public good missions in the form of medical and emergency response by drone, receiving packages faster, and participating in a sustainable and safe mode of air transportation a reality.

This new form of transportation is called Advanced Air Mobility (AAM).

The FAA is collaborating with the NASA on their Advanced Air Mobility National Campaign.

Urban Air Mobility (UAM) envisions a safe and efficient aviation transportation system that will use highly automated aircraft that will operate and transport passengers or cargo at lower altitudes within urban and suburban areas.

UAM will be composed of an ecosystem that considers the evolution and safety of the aircraft, the framework for operation, access to airspace, infrastructure development, and community engagement.

Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) builds upon the UAM concept by incorporating use cases not specific to operations in urban environments, such as:

(1) Commercial Inter-city (Longer Range/Thin Haul)

(2) Cargo Delivery

(3) Public Services

(4) Private / Recreational Vehicles

The initial UAM ecosystem will use existing helicopter infrastructure such as routes, helipads, and ATC services, where practicable given the aircraft characteristics.

Looking toward the future, the FAA is working to identify infrastructure design needs for these aircraft.

I begin this AAM story chronologically, starting in 2018, with the most recent developments at the end.

2018 – NASA asked the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to undertake a study, entitled Advanced Aerial Mobility: A National Blueprint, to evaluate the potential benefits and challenges associated with AAM, an emerging technological development that can be simultaneously transformative and disruptive for the nation’s aviation infrastructure and industry.

Although the statement of task referred to UAM, while this study was under way the aviation community, and NASA itself, increasingly used the term AAM of which UAM is considered a subset (albeit the most challenging one).

This committee therefore chose to use AAM to capture the broader range of opportunities and operations that are being discussed.

NASA has developed a framework for UAM Maturity Levels (UMLs), which categorizes anticipated evolutionary stages of a UAM transportation system into six levels.

Each UML represents a level of maturity of the UAM ecosystem, with UML-6 representing the ubiquitous integration of UAM into daily life.

Some additional resources:

Description of the NASA Urban Air Mobility Maturity Level (UML) Scale

AAM National Campaigns (NC)

UAM Vision ConOps UAM Maturity Level (UML) – 4

The figure below shows the anticipated evolution through the UMLs.

Photo courtesy of National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

2020 – FAA developed and shared the UAM Concept of Operations (ConOps) version 1.0 with both internal and external stakeholders – this has been updated by V2.0 – see below

2023 – FAA released UAM Concept of Operations (ConOps) version 2.0

2021 – NASA Autonomous Systems & Robotics Roadmap and Investments

2021 –  The future of Advanced Aerial Mobility

2022 – S.516 – Advanced Air Mobility Coordination and Leadership Act  became Public Law No: 117-203

This act directs the DOT to establish an AAM interagency working group to plan and coordinate efforts related to the safety, infrastructure, physical security, cybersecurity, and federal investment necessary to bolster the AAM ecosystem, particularly passenger-carrying aircraft, in the US.

AAM refers to an air transportation system that moves people and cargo between places using new aircraft designs that are integrated into existing airspace operations as well as operated in local, regional, intraregional, rural, and urban environments.

Additionally, the Government Accountability Office must study and report to Congress on the interests, roles, and responsibilities of federal, state, local, and tribal governments affected by AAM aircraft and operations.

2022 – President Biden signed into law the Advanced Air Mobility Coordination and Leadership Act and directed the Secretary of Transportation to establish the Advanced Air Mobility Interagency Working Group (AAM IWG).

The purpose of the AAM IWG is to plan for and coordinate efforts to integrate advanced air mobility aircraft into the national airspace system, particularly passenger carrying aircraft, in order to grow new transportation options, amplify economic activity and jobs, advance environmental sustainability and new technologies, and support emergency preparedness and competitiveness.

The AAM IWG is comprised of 22 members from the following Federal departments and agencies.

• Department of Transportation
• Department of State
• Department of Defense
• Department of Justice
• Department of the Interior
• Department of Agriculture
• Department of Commerce
• Department of Labor
• Department of Energy
• Department of Veterans Affairs
• Department of Homeland Security
• National Aeronautics & Space Administration
• Office of Management and Budget
• Council of Economic Advisors
• National Security Council
• Office of Science and Technology Policy
• Office of the National Cyber Director
• Federal Communications Commission
• Department of Education

The AAM IWG will develop a national strategy that includes recommendations regarding the safety, operations, security, infrastructure, air traffic concepts, and other Federal investment or actions necessary to support the evolution of early AAM to higher levels of activity and societal benefit; and a comprehensive plan detailing the roles and responsibilities of each Federal department and agency, and of State, local, and Tribal governments, necessary to facilitate or implement the recommendations developed.

2022 – Urban Air Mobility Study: Safety Standards, Aircraft Certification, and Impact on Market Feasibility and Growth Potentials

2022 – US GAO – Transforming Aviation: Congress Should Clarify Certain Tax Exemptions for Advanced Air Mobility

2022 – US GAO – Transforming Aviation:Stakeholders Identified Issues to Address for ‘Advanced Air Mobility’

2023 – DOT began implementation of the Act which directs the Secretary of Transportation with establishing an interagency working group to develop a whole-of-government national strategy for the future of Advanced Air Mobility in the United States.

DOT hosted an in-person meeting with representatives from over 15 Federal departments and agencies to develop a comprehensive work plan for the next year and ultimately deliver the AAM National Strategy in 2024 per the requirements of the law.

The team also heard presentations on existing government activities from FAA, NASA, and DOD, as well as an external analysis by NEXA Capital Partners on the economic long-term potential for the industry and the communities it may serve.

The interagency team will frame their work over the next year through established subgroups focused on automation strategy, security, infrastructure, air traffic, and community roles and engagement.

The interagency team plans to engage the public and a variety of stakeholders over the next few months including manufacturers and operators, aviation industry and labor stakeholders, as well as State, local, and Tribal governments.

The team looks forward to those engagements and will ensure all voices are heard in building the AAM National Strategy.

2023 – The White House released A Vision for America’s Continued Global Leadership in Aeronautics which identifies three key priority areas that will be essential to US leadership in the industry of tomorrow:

• Achieving sustainable aviation: The Administration is committed to reducing and eventually eliminating the climate impact of aeronautics and to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. This includes implementing the US Aviation Climate Action Plan and the Climate Adaptation Plans across the federal government.

• Transforming the national airspace system: The Administration is committed to transforming aviation in both urban and rural communities, creating new industries and jobs. This includes transitioning from legacy technologies, and integrating modern and emerging technologies, including drones and Advanced Air Mobility aircraft, into the national airspace system.

• Promoting connectivity and speed: The Administration is committed to exploring new technologies that will enhance global connectivity at greater speed. This includes continued support for research and development of superior aircraft and technologies, from subsonic through hypersonic technologies, that emphasize speed.

2023 – FAA put out a Request for Information on Advanced Air Mobility – Comments closed 7-17-2023

2023 – FAA put out Policy on the Definition of Aeronautical Activities – Comments close 1/15/2024

2023 – FAA released Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) Implementation Plan known as Innovate28

2023 – Audit Report – Regulatory Gaps and Lack of Consensus Hindered FAA’s Progress in Certifying Advanced Air Mobility Aircraft, and Challenges Remain – Requested by the Ranking Members of the US House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and its Subcommittee on Aviation

2023 – FAA Proposes Rule to Enhance Safety and Performance of Light Sport Aircraft

The FAA is planning to enhance the safety and performance of Light Sport Aircraft operations.

The proposed Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification (MOSAIC) rule would put performance safety standards around larger aircraft that innovators are building by expanding the definition of Light Sport Aircraft.

“This rule will encourage manufactures to make Light Sport Aircraft operations safer, more versatile and accessible while maintaining rigorous safety standards,” said Acting FAA Associate Administrator for Safety David Boulter.

Under the proposal, the aircraft’s weight limit is based on its stall speed.

By permitting higher stall speeds, the proposal would bring within the Light Sport Aircraft regulatory framework aircraft weighing as much as 3,000 pounds.

This more than doubles the weight of aircraft under the current definition of Light Sport of 1,320 pounds, allowing larger and stronger aircraft to qualify as Light Sport.

The proposal would also expand the type of aircraft sport pilots can operate and allows them to use their aircraft for a wider range of operations such as some aerial work.

Although sport pilots could operate aircraft designed with up to four seats, they would remain limited to operating with only one passenger.

Proposed rule published in the Federal Register – Comments closed October 23, 2024

2023 – Update to Air Carrier Definitions

2023 – Autonomy Verification & Validation Roadmap and Vision 2045

NASA Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD)

NASA ARMD Programs

NASA’s vision for AAM Mission

– to help emerging aviation markets to safely develop an air transportation system

– that moves people and cargo

– between places previously not served or underserved by aviation

– local, regional, intraregional, urban

– using revolutionary new aircraft that are only just now becoming possible

The Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD)

– initiated the AAM Mission Integration Office during the 2020 fiscal year

– with the objective to promote flexibility and agility

– while fostering AAM mission success and

– to promote teamwork across ARMD projects contributing to the AAM Mission

The AAM Mission addresses a broad set of barriers necessary to enable AAM which will be accomplished with the contributions made by projects across the mission directorate.

Contributing projects include:

Advanced Air Mobility

Air Traffic Management eXploration

Revolutionary Vertical Lift Technology

System-Wide Safety

Transformational Tools and Technologies

2023 – Integration of Powered-Lift: Pilot Certification and Operations; Miscellaneous Amendments Related to Rotorcraft and Airplanes – NPRM – Comments closed 8-14-2023

The FAA took another key step toward safely enabling AAM by proposing a comprehensive rule for training and certifying pilots.

“These proposed rules of the sky will safely usher in this new era of aviation and provide the certainty the industry needs to develop,” said Acting Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety David Boulter. 

The NPRM proposes a Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) that will remain in effect for 10 years after the final rule’s publication.

An SFAR permits the FAA to make assumptions about technology that can later be rectified if contrary operational data is collected and allows the FAA to modify the rules over the SFAR’s life span.

As a result, an SFAR enables the FAA to adapt its regulations as the industry develops, allowing critical flexibility when drafting rules related to emerging technology.

It serves as a noncommittal mechanism to achieve regulatory integration without first fully knowing how the operations will work.

During the SFAR’s 10-year term, the FAA would collect operational data to inform future adoption of permanent regulations. 

The FAA’s use of an SFAR, as opposed to more traditional regulatory frameworks, is consistent with its approach to enable other operations that were initially supported by limited data.

For example, the FAA utilized an SFAR in 1975 when it permitted instrument helicopter operations pending the further collection of operational data. 

Thus, while the SFAR method is relatively unique, it is not unprecedented.

The SFAR would be housed in a new subchapter L, “Other Special Federal Aviation Regulations,” and consist of 14 C.F.R. part 194, SFAR No. 120.

In addition to this new subchapter, the NPRM also proposes permanent amendments to several existing regulatory parts, including Parts 61, 91, 135, 141, and 142.

Powered-lift according to 14 CFR Part 1.1 means a heavier-than-air aircraft capable of vertical takeoff, vertical landing, and low speed flight that depends principally on engine-driven lift devices or engine thrust for lift during these flight regimes and on nonrotating airfoil(s) for lift during horizontal flight.

2023 – US DOT, Office of Inspector General – Regulatory Gaps and Lack of Consensus Hindered FAA’s Progress in Certifying Advanced Air Mobility Aircraft, and Challenges Remain

AAM is a Government and industry initiative to develop an air transportation system between and within rural and urban locations.

This new technology, including highly automated hVTOL and eVTOL aircraft, promises many benefits.

However, the FAA’s regulations are still primarily intended for traditional small aircraft, creating challenges for FAA.

Given these challenges, the Ranking Members of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and its Subcommittee on Aviation requested this audit.

OIG’s objective was to determine FAA’s progress in establishing the basis for certification of AAM aircraft, including ensuring the safety of novel features and providing guidance to applicants.

Regulatory, management, and communication issues hindered FAA’s progress in certifying AAM aircraft, and challenges remain.

Given their unique features, AAM aircraft do not fully fit into FAA’s existing airworthiness standards.

For over 4 years, FAA made limited progress in determining which certification path to use.

One issue is that, over 2 decades ago, FAA defined an aircraft category called powered-lift that is applicable to some AAM aircraft.

However, FAA never established corresponding airworthiness standards and operational regulations, leading to significant internal debates and a lack of consensus on how to proceed.

This lack of consensus affected rulemaking efforts that hindered the Agency’s progress.

Further, FAA changed its certification path, which caught industry by surprise.

The Agency will likely continue to face challenges as it progresses through the certification process for AAM aircraft, including reviewing novel features and establishing new operational regulations.

Finally, FAA has not sufficiently established policies and procedures for its Center for Emerging Concepts and Innovation, or communicated about its role in AAM certification.

Continued ineffective coordination and communication, as well as the lack of timely decision making and established policies, could further hinder progress.

FAA concurred with OIG’s 4 recommendations to enhance FAA’s regulatory efforts and communication regarding the AAM aircraft certification process.

OIG considers all recommendations resolved but open pending completion of planned actions.

2023 – FAA UAS-AAM Integration Research Plan 2021-2026

2023 – UP.Partners – The Moving World Report

2023 – HAI – Roadmap of Advanced Air Mobility Operations

2023 – NASA: EAD thrusters offer nearly silent propulsion for AAM aircraft

2023 – GAMA – Managing Range and Endurance of Battery-Electric Aircraft

2024 – SkyGrid, NASA to collaborate on AAM integration, safety, standards

2024 – H.R.3935 – Securing Growth and Robust Leadership in American Aviation Act – also known as the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 – Key highlights with respect to AAM:

2024 – FAA seeks comments on eVTOL vertiport design standards

For eVTOLs to be deployed commercially at scale, 3 core aviation regulatory approvals will be required in most jurisdictions:

1. Type certifications are the regulatory approval of the airworthiness of a particular manufacturing design (type design), and are the first step for commercialization of any eVTOL.

Many companies are currently in this phase of their business plans, as they design their eVTOL aircraft and pursue a type certificate.

The first step in obtaining a type certificate for an eVTOL involves airworthiness approval of the aircraft and its components according to its type design.

FAA Order 8110.4C – Type Certification

To address eVTOL type certification, the FAA applies one of two existing certification processes in 14 CFR Part 21.17(a) and (b).

Part 21.17 (a) involves the designation of applicable airworthiness standards when the aircraft closely matches the characteristics of a particular airplane or rotorcraft class, along with special conditions to address any differences.

Part 21.17(b) is used for special classes of aircraft, and the FAA will apply airworthiness requirements derived from other regulations as appropriate, in addition to other airworthiness criteria that the FAA may find to provide an equivalent level of safety to existing airworthiness requirements.

The FAA is currently working on draft policy and guidance for eVTOL type certification and has indicated that it is deciding whether the process under Part 21.17(a), using the airworthiness standards for Normal Category Airplanes under 14 CFR Part 23, or the process under Part 21.17(b) will apply to eVTOLs.

Small Airplanes Issues List (SAIL)

FAA Design Approvals

Going forward, Part 21.17(a) may offer eVTOL companies more certainty with the FAA using existing airworthiness standards if the eVTOL design closely matches the characteristics a particular airplane or rotorcraft class (e.g., Normal Category Airplanes).

The FAA has also updated the airworthiness standards in 14 CFR Part 23 to provide for a performance-based approach, which will offer some flexibility in the special conditions applied to eVTOLs under the Part 21.17(a) process. 83 FR 21850

Part 21.17(a) may also expedite certification transferability across jurisdictions as compared to the special class process under Part 21.17(b).

Given the unique designs of eVTOL concepts, however, type certification under Part 21.17(b) may offer eVTOL companies a greater degree of flexibility.

Many current eVTOL concepts differ in significant ways from available certification requirements, and future concepts are expected to require further changes to the type certification process (e.g., automation).

Some examples include unique aircraft configurations, electric distributed propulsion, energy storage and distribution systems, high voltage architecture, fly-by-wire flight control systems, advanced or automated systems, crashworthiness requirements, and noise standards.

In connection with the process under Part 21.17(b), these additional certification considerations are dealt with on a case-by-case basis or through Issue Papers to provide the FAA with detailed system descriptions and an understanding of what specific systems do and what other systems they are connected with, allowing the FAA to develop the requisite standards.

FAA Order 8110.112A

2. Production Certification will allow mass production of a particular eVTOL and is granted when a manufacturer can demonstrate that it can produce aircraft that will meet the standards of a type certificate.

Once a type certificate is issued, eVTOL manufacturers will need to obtain a production certificate, which requires that a manufacturer demonstrate its ability to produce the aircraft to the same standards.

3. Operational Authorities – To operate eVTOLs commercially by transporting passengers or cargo, additional operational requirements and authorizations for commercial operations are required.

These government approvals align with requirements for traditional commercial aircraft used in passenger and cargo operations.

However, civil aviation authorities worldwide are in the process of adapting regulatory frameworks to account for fundamental differences in eVTOL technology and operations as compared to traditional aircraft.

Companies wishing to operate eVTOLs commercially must also obtain an Air Carrier Certificate from the FAA under 14 CFR Part 135, which carries additional safety, maintenance, performance, and operational requirements.

eVTOL operators must also obtain economic authority from the DOT to operate commercially and will be subject to associated US ownership and control requirements.

Given varying requirements based on aircraft type, the FAA’s decisions around eVTOL type certification will be critical in determining the applicability of specific rules to future regulatory issues such as operations, pilots, and infrastructure, or whether new rules will be required.

14 CFR Part 135 Air Carrier and Operator Certification

Charter type services

Future eVTOL applications will include autonomous operations, without pilots, which present many of the same regulatory challenges that unmanned aircraft systems (UAS or “drones”) have been grappling with in recent years.

NASA Advanced Air Mobility Partnerships

The Advanced Aviation Advisory Committee (AAAC) is a broad-based federal advisory committee that provides independent advice and recommendations to the FAA on key UAS and AAM integration issues, interests and policies.

The AAAC‘s work relates to the efficiency and safety of integrating advance aviation technologies into the NAS.

The charter amendment modified the FAA‘s Drone Advisory Committee, renaming the committee and expanding membership from 35 to 41 members.

The vacancies expand representation in current stakeholder groups to include members with an AAM background.

Additionally, there is a new stakeholder group that includes a community advocate representative to provide insight and expertise on potential impacts of increased drone traffic on communities.

2024 – Integration of Powered-Lift: Pilot Certification and Operations; Miscellaneous Amendments Related to Rotorcraft and Airplanes – Final Rule – adopts permanent amendments and a Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) for a period of 10 years to:

• facilitate the certification of powered-lift pilots,
• clarify operating rules applicable to operations involving a powered-lift, and
• finalize other amendments which are necessary to integrate powered-lift into the National Airspace System (NAS).

In this final action, the FAA finalizes its alternate framework to stand-up initial groups of powered-lift pilots and flight instructors.

Most notably, the FAA adopts alternate frameworks to facilitate the certification of pilots seeking qualifications in a powered-lift with single functioning flight controls and a single pilot station.

In response to commenters, the FAA provides clarification for certain operating rules and adopts a performance-based approach to certain operating rules to enable powered-lift operations.

In addition to finalizing provisions for powered-lift, this action also makes changes to practical tests in aircraft that require type ratings, including airplanes and helicopters, training center rotorcraft instructor eligibility, training and testing requirements, and training center use of rotorcraft in flight training.

Vertiports

2022 – FAA released its design guidelines for vertiports (EB 105), infrastructure that will support AAM aircraft.

The design standards will serve as the initial step to provide key information for airport owners, operators, and infrastructure developers to begin development of facilities that will support operations of AAM aircraft that are electrically powered and take-off and land vertically.

These VTOL operations will transport passengers or cargo at lower altitudes in rural, urban, and suburban areas.

The design standards include critical information that designers and builders will need to follow to allow for safe takeoffs and landings.

Some of those include:

(1) Safety-critical geometry and design elements

Dimensions for vertiport touchdown and liftoff areas, additional airspace needed for approach and departure paths and load-bearing capacity.

In the future FAA anticipates a high rate of operations at many vertiports.

(2) Lighting, markings, and visual aids

Guidelines on markings, lighting and visual aids that identify the facility as a vertiport.

The FAA recommends the Vertiport Identification Symbol, as shown in the middle of the graphic below.

(3) Charging and electric infrastructure

Initial safety standards and guidelines for batteries and charging equipment that will be central to vertiports.

(4) On-airport vertiports

Requirements for airports looking to add vertiports to an existing commercial airport, including the distance a vertiport would have to be from a current runway.

(5) Elevated vertiports

Requirements and guidelines for vertiports that may be on top of existing structures.

This vertiport guidance will be used until performance-based vertiport design guidance is developed.

The final design standards are based on research conducted by the FAA, collaboration with industry partners and feedback from the public.

The FAA is including AAM and UAM in their planning efforts, and their work is organized around 5 areas of activity – aircraft, airspace, operations, infrastructure, and community.

FAA guidance – Advanced Air Mobility Infrastructure

Prior to this, the only other published vertiport standard was ASTM International’s F-3423, Standard Specification for Vertiport Design, which came out in August 2022.

High-Density Automated Vertiport Concept of Operations

2023 – Interoperability of Electric Charging Infrastructure

A report by the Infrastructure Subcommittee of the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) Electric Propulsion and Innovation Committee (EPIC)

Adoption of a unified charging standard is crucial to enabling electric aviation to scale, enhancing efficiency and sustainability in our aviation system.

When electric aircraft and electric ground vehicles from different manufacturers can share charging infrastructure, everyone gains.

Having one standard simplifies and improves the customer experience, and the risks and costs associated with building a network of charging stations are distributed across the industry.

A common standard helps boost investment in the industry, and also encourages adoption of, and access to, publicly accessible charging networks.

2024 – The world is planning 1,044 vertiports for construction by 2028 – our latest report

Counter-UAS (C-UAS) Laws and Policies

Counter-UAS (C-UAS) is often described as deploying UAS detection and mitigation equipment.

Detection equipment includes radars, acoustic sensors, radio frequency (RF) sensors, and electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) cameras.

Mitigation equipment includes kinetic and non-kinetic technologies to disrupt, disable, or destroy a drone.

C-UAS is more than just the deployment and use of technologies, it is what defines the mission.

Here is a non-exhaustive list of C-UAS laws, regulations, and policies:

FAA Order JO 7400.2M

14 CFR Part 139

and more specifically 14 CFR Part 139.333 and 14 CFR Part 139.203

Grant Assurance 20, Hazard Removal and Mitigation – FAA

Grant Assurance 29, Airport Layout Plan – FAA

Updated Information on UAS-Detection and Countermeasures Technology (Counter-UAS) at Airports, May 2019

Attachment 1, July 19, 2018, Letter From FAA Office of Airports on Guidance on Use of Counter UAS Systems at Airports

Attachment 2, Frequently Asked Questions and Answers Concerning UAS Detection Systems

Attachment 3, Unmanned Aircraft Systems Detection – Technical Considerations

Section 2206 of PL 114-190, FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016

Aircraft Sabotage Act of 1984

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986

10 USC §130i. Protection of certain facilities and assets from unmanned aircraft authorizes the US DOD to engage in certain C-UAS activities that might otherwise violate relevant provisions of federal law.

Those laws are 49 U.S.C. § 46502 (aircraft piracy), 18 U.S.C. § 32 (destruction of aircraft), 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (computer fraud and abuse), 18 U.S.C. § 1367 (interference with the operation of a satellite), and chapters 119 (interception of communications) and 206 (pen registers and trap and trace devices) of Title 18.

10 U.S.C. Section 130i is related to covered facilities or assets as identified by the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation.  The covered facilities or assets are located in the United States, to include territories and possessions.

18 USC

and more specifically 18 USC 3121 on – Pen/Trap Statute

and 18USC 2520 on – Wiretap Act

18 USC 119

18 USC 3121

18 USC §1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers

18 USC 1362

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1362 is an expansive statute designed to protect any part of a communications system, including its transmission lines, that is either operated or controlled directly by the United States, and it protects any part of a private communications system that is used or is intended to be used by the United States for military or civil defense functions.

18 USC 1367 – Prohibition against interference with certain satellite operations

The 1986 Act added 18 U.S.C. § 1367, which makes it an offense to intentionally or maliciously interfere with the authorized operation of a communications or weather satellite, or to hinder any satellite transmission. This section is intended to cover interference with transmissions from the ground to the satellite and transmissions from the satellite to the ground. See S.Rep. No. 541, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 49 (1986). The penalty for this offense is a fine under Title 18 and imprisonment for not more than 10 years. The criminal prohibition does not apply to any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency or of an intelligence agency of the United States.

18 USC 2510

18 USC 2511 – Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited

47 USC 301 – RELOCATION OF AND SPECTRUM SHARING BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT STATIONS

47 USC 302a: Devices which interfere with radio reception

47 USC 320 – Stations liable to interfere with distress signals; designation and regulation

47 USC 325 – False, fraudulent, or unauthorized transmissions

47 USC 333 – Willful or malicious interference

47 USC 502

Under 47 USC § 502, any person who willfully and knowingly violates a regulation of the Federal Communications Commission is subject to a maximum fine of $500 for each day on which a violation occurs. Two pertinent regulations are found in 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.701 and 15.9, which prohibit the use of radio devices to intercept or record conversations unless all parties to the conversation first consent.

47 USC 605 – Unauthorized publication or use of communications

49 USC

and more specifically 49 USC 46502 – Aircraft Piracy

49 USC 44903 – Air transportation security

49 USC 44718 – Structures interfering with air commerce

In 49 U.S.C. § 44801(5), a “counter-UAS system” means “a system or device capable of lawfully and safely disabling, disrupting, or seizing control of an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system.”

Some additional resources:

Berlin Memo

CRDA – Cooperative Research and Development Agreements

Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) – 2023 Security Planning Workbook

Counter UAS Legal Authorities Fact Sheet – Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency

DHS S&T Seeks to Assess Kinetic Mitigation Capabilities for Countering Small Unmanned Aerial Systems

Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems Technology Guide – 2023

DOD

Use of Water for Counter Unmanned Aerial Systems (C-UAS) – DSIAC TECHNICAL INQUIRY (TI) RESPONSE REPORT

FAA ADO – Airport District Office

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Detection and Mitigation Systems ARC Charter – FAA – Advisory and Rulemaking Committees

FAA ARP – Office of Airports

FAA ASH – Office of Security and Hazardous Materials Safety

FAA ATO – Air Traffic Organization

UAS Sightings Report – FAA

UAS Detection, Mitigation, and Response on Airports – FAA

FCC

International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR)

INTERPOL convenes global summit on the use of drones – INTERPOL Drone Countermeasure – 2022

NTIA

UN Counter-Terrorism and Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Digital Forensics

My chronological notes:

When it comes to the DOD and C-UAS, the primary purpose of the DoD domestic aviation operations are to support Homeland Defense (HD) and Defense Support of Civilian Authorities (DSCA) operations, and military training and exercises.

While manned aircraft primarily support these missions, the operational use of DoD UAS, in lieu of manned aircraft may be appropriate for some domestic mission sets, when sustained endurance efforts are required; unmanned aircraft provide superior capabilities; or physical infrastructure limitations prohibit the use of manned rotary or fixed-winged aircraft.

Since 2006, DoD has had very specific and stringent guidance on the domestic use of DoD UAS.

On occasion, DoD operates UAS domestically in support of a request from Federal or State civilian authorities.

DoD only conducts these operations with the approval of the Secretary of Defense, who in 2018, delegated the approval of the use of smaller UAS to the Secretaries of the Military Departments, or the Geographic Combatant Commander where smaller UAS use supports Force Protection and Defense Support of Civil Authorities.

This policy direction is set out in the Secretary of Defense Policy Memorandum titled Guidance for the Domestic Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems in U.S. National Airspace.

This guidance also states that armed DOD UAS may not be used in the US except for training, exercises, and testing purposes.

Additionally, in recognition of the potential value of UAS, the Secretary of Defense has authorized State Governors to use smaller UAS by State National Guard units conducting Search and Rescue, and Incident and Awareness and Assessment missions, while in a State Active Duty status.

The primary purpose, and large majority, of DoD domestic UAS operations is for DoD forces to gain realistic training experience, test equipment and tactics in preparation for potential overseas warfighting missions, which occasionally also contributes DSCA training and exercises.

DoD has logged millions of UAS flight hours worldwide.

This extensive experience is the foundation of the Department’s careful adherence to aviation safety policies and procedures regarding both manned and unmanned aircraft.

The DoD fields DoD UAS across all four Services, including the National Guard. The Department currently operates more than 11,000 UAS in support of domestic training events and overseas contingency missions.

These aircraft range in size from the small RQ-11B Raven to the largest RQ/MQ-4 Global Hawk/Triton, which weighs more than 32,000 pounds.

DoD UAS currently do not have direct access to the NAS, unlike manned aircraft.

In order for DoD UAS to operate in the NAS, the DoD is required to obtain a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) from the FAA. A COA allows DoD UAS to fly pre-coordinated flight routes to DoD special use airspace.

The vast majority of DoD UAS training is conducted in airspace delegated by the FAA for DoD use.

Airspace delegated by the FAA for DoD use includes Special Use Airspace delegated by the FAA for DoD use (SUA), temporary Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace Areas (ATCAA), airspace above land with express permission of the landowner or government-owned or -leased land as permitted by DoD-FAA MOA, US National Airspace delegated by the FAA for DoD use to provide air traffic services, US National Airspace under an approved FAA Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA), and airspace delegated by the FAA and coordinated with DoD for permanent, long-term and short-term requirements.

Upon DoD request, the FAA may issue a Class G COA via notification for low-altitude training operations in uncontrolled airspace.

Class G COA via notification are issued for small-UAS that operate over government land, government-leased land or with permission of the landowner while the operator maintains sight of the aircraft.

You can read more about DOD – C-UAS Strategy. the Blue UAS is a holistic and continuous approach to rapidly prototyping and scaling capable and secure commercial UAS technology for the DoD. Here is the Blue SUAS List.

AUVSI, to provide the civilian counterpart to this, has launched Green UAS, that builds on Blue UAS to serve the non-defense drone community and bolsters the drone manufacturing base. Green UAS is the first product of AUVSI’s broader Trusted Cyber Program, which AUVSI launched in August 2022 with collaboration from AUVSI members and Fortress Information Security, a leading cybersecurity firm with experience in industry-led cyber standards development.

The assessment process is administered by AUVSI — the world’s largest nonprofit for drones and autonomous systems — in collaboration with the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU). AUVSI will work with a network of cybersecurity firms to rapidly vet drones that are seeking Green UAS certification using frameworks that address threats and cyber risks in the areas of corporate cyber hygiene, product and device security, supply chain risk management, and for drones that are not seeking to go from Green to Blue, remote operations and connectivity.

Green compliant drones that have a DoD customer/sponsor willing to sponsor and fund a DoD Authority to Operate (ATO) will have the opportunity to transition from the Green UAS cleared list to Blue UAS cleared list.

In the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, Congress addressed C-UAS in great detail.

In the Advisory on the Application of Federal Laws to the Acquisition and Use of Technology to Detect and Mitigate Unmanned Aircraft Systems, issued in 2020, co-authored by the DOJ, DHS, FCC, and the DOT, an implied definition of C-UAS is provided as, “…using technical tools, systems, and capabilities to detect and mitigate Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS).” 

Although no specific term such as C-UAS is used to describe the mission in 6 U.S.C. § 124n, which provides statutory relief from provisions of Title 18 and Title 49 to the DOJ and DHS, C-UAS is characterized as the “protection of certain facilities and assets from unmanned aircraft,” and “…may authorize personnel with assigned duties that include the security or protection of people, facilities, or assets” to take further actions which include:

• Detect, identify, monitor, and track the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft without prior consent;
• Warn the operator of the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft;
• Disrupt control of the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft without prior consent;
• Seize or exercise control of the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft;
• Seize or otherwise confiscate the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft;
• Use reasonable force, if necessary, to disrupt, disable, damage, or destroy the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft.

DHS

According to their website on DHS C-UAS, the rapid increase in the availability and sophistication of UAS represents a significant challenge, as their capabilities progress faster than the ability to assess and mitigate the threat posed by nefarious small UAS.

The Science and Technology Directorate’s (S&T’s) program assesses C-UAS technologies both in laboratory and real-world operational environments and assists DHS Components in: developing and refining requirements, completing the Congressionally mandated 6 USC 124n process to test and evaluate prototype C-UAS capabilities at a covered asset or mission, and in executing limited-duration C-UAS technology pilots at DHS Component locations.

The program also guides the development of new and innovative technologies to deliver critical C-UAS capabilities to DHS Components.

The DHS is working within the C-UAS industry.

The rapid increase in the availability and sophistication of UAS represents a significant challenge, as their capabilities progress faster than the ability to assess and mitigate potential threats.

The DHS Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) C-UAS Program is assessing C-UAS technologies and guiding the development of new capabilities for the Homeland Security Enterprise (HSE).

The program supports requirements documentation, rapid development, system integration, and specification and performance testing based on the C-UAS needs and requirements of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Federal Protective Service (FPS), Transportation Security Administration (TSA), U.S. Secret Service, and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG).

2020 – DOJ, FAA, DHS, and FCC issued an advisory guidance document to help non-federal public and private entities better understand the federal laws and regulations that may apply to the use of capabilities to detect and mitigate threats posed by UAS operations.

2021 – Executive Order – Protecting the United States From Certain Unmanned Aircraft Systems

Order JO 7210.3CC – Facility Operation and Administration

2−1−34. USE OF COUNTER UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (C−UAS)

Airport owners/operators or local enforcement may contact ATC facilities to coordinate their acquisition, testing, and operational use of UAS detection systems. These systems and how they are used may have implications for FAA regulations for airports; potentially affect ATC and other Air Navigation Services systems (e.g., RF interference with radars); and/or trigger airport responses (e.g., closing runways), which must be coordinated with ATC.

a. Requests by airport authorities for ATC facility cooperation/authorization in the acquisition, testing, or use of UAS detection systems will be referred to the appropriate FAA Airports District Office (ADO). The ADO will initiate internal FAA coordination, including reviews by the responsible ATO offices and facilities.

b. ATC facilities must not enter into any verbal or written agreement with a commercial vendor or an airport authority regarding UAS detection capabilities without prior coordination and approval from HQ−AJT−0.

NOTE− 1. UAS detection systems do not include the interdiction components that characterize UAS mitigation technologies, also referred to as Counter Unmanned Aircraft System (C−UAS) technologies. Only select Federal Departments and Agencies have the legal authority to use C−UAS systems in the NAS. The FAA does not support the use of this technology by other entities without this legal authorization.

2. The FAA does not advocate the use of UAS detection in the airport environment until appropriate policy and procedures are developed.

2−1−35. USE OF COUNTER UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (C−UAS)

Select Departments and Agencies, which have been legally authorized to use this technology, are operationally using Counter Unmanned Aircraft System systems (C−UAS) in the NAS to protect certain facilities and assets. C−UAS systems are capable of disabling, disrupting, or seizing control of a suspicious UAS, and may integrate or be linked to UAS detection capabilities. These Departments and Agencies are required to coordinate with the FAA to assess and mitigate risks to the NAS posed by these C−UAS systems. These systems and their deployment may affect ATC and other Air Navigation Services systems (e.g., RF interference with radars); which could impact other air traffic in the vicinity including legitimate, compliant UAS flights. Additionally, the C−UAS may involve the response and deployment of ground/airborne operational security assets, which must be coordinated with ATC.

a. The Joint Air Traffic Operations Command (JATOC) Air Traffic Security Coordinator (ATSC) team, which manages the Domestic Events Network (DEN), must notify affected ATC facilities when C−UAS systems are activated.

NOTE− Only select Federal Departments/Agencies have been legally authorized to utilize C−UAS to cover certain facilities and assets, and with coordination with the FAA to address risks to the NAS. Risk mitigation for the NAS typically includes notification to potentially affected ATC facilities.

b. The DEN must alert all ATC facilities affected by C−UAS deployment and JATOC National Operations Control Center (NOCC) of any possible operational impacts.

1. The alerts will focus on real−time reporting regarding possible operational impacts of C−UAS activities providing the affected facilities with heightened awareness to potential flight and equipment anomalies; and will allow the facilities to take actions needed to sustain safe operations.

2. The alerts must be made via landline communications and must not be broadcast over radios, shout lines, or direct dial lines to air traffic controllers on position.

3. The affected ATC facilities must not discuss C−UAS operations with any outside entity.

2024 – FBI and CISA warn companies to be wary of using Chinese-made drones over national security risks

2024 – Continuing Resolution Extends DHS and DOJ C-UAS Authority – H.R. 6363, the “Further Continuing Appropriates and Other Extensions Act, 2024,” was passed by both the House and Senate on November 2023 and signed by President Biden. The legislation extends the C-UAS Authority for the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) until February 3, 2024. The authority was set to expire on November 18, 2023. The authorities for the two federal agencies have been extended multiple times since the authorities were initially set to expire in October 2022. The authorities were established under The Preventing Emerging Threats Act of 2018, codified as 6 U.S. Code Section 124n(i).

Commercial resources:

C-UAS Hub – online hub for Counter-UAS and airspace awareness vendors, products, services, news, jobs, and resources.

What is Counter-UAS?

A Comprehensive Approach to Countering Unmanned Aircraft Systems

The Emergence of the Counter-UAS Industry

Information for Foreign Drone Operators

These are the rules you need to observe if you are not a US citizen and plan to bring your drone with you when you visit the US.

Federal Drone Laws

2024 – H.R.3935 – Securing Growth and Robust Leadership in American Aviation Act – also known as the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 – Key highlights with respect to UAS

Section 907 – RemoteID Alternative Means of Compliance

Requires the Administrator to review and evaluate the FAA final rule titled “Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft” to determine if unmanned aircraft manufacturers and operators can comply through alternative means of compliance, including through network–based remote identification.

Section 909 – Environmental Review and Noise Certification

Directs the FAA to publish UAS-specific environmental review guidance and implementation procedures and identify other potential categorical exclusions to more easily allow for safe commercial operations of UAS.

Section 911 – Pilot Program for UAS Inspections of FAA Infrastructure

Requires DOT to initiate a pilot program to supplement the department’s oversight and inspection activities using UAS, including the inspection of ground-based aviation infrastructure, to increase employee safety, enhance data collection, improve the accuracy of inspections, and reduce the costs associated with such inspections.

Section 912 – Drone Infrastructure Inspection Grant Program

Establishes a grant program to support the use of UAS when inspecting, repairing, or constructing critical infrastructure. Under this program, DOT will award grants to state, tribal, and local governments, metropolitan planning organizations, or groups of those entities to purchase and use UAS to increase efficiency, reduce costs, improve worker and community safety, reduce carbon emissions, or meet other priorities related to critical infrastructure projects.

Section 913 – Drone Education and Workforce Training Grant Program

Directs DOT to establish a program to make grants available to educational institutions for small UAS workforce training. In addition, this section authorizes $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2028 to be appropriated from the Operations account of the FAA.

Section 925 – UAS Test Ranges

Requires the FAA to carry out and update a program for the use of UAS test ranges to enable development, testing, and evaluation activities related to UAS or their associated technologies and to support the safe integration of UAS into the national airspace system (NAS). In addition, this section provides the FAA the discretion to stand up two additional UAS test ranges while retaining the existing seven test ranges.

Grants the FAA the authority to establish, at the request of a test range, a restricted area, special use airspace, or other similar types of airspace for hazardous development, testing, and evaluation activities.

Lays out the expected responsibilities of test range sponsors, which include providing, on a quarterly basis, recommendations to the FAA on ways to further enable public and private development, testing, and evaluation activities at test ranges.

Section 927 – Extension of Special Authority for Certain UAS

Extends the authorities under Section 44807 of 49 U.S.Code that allow for special authorizations permitting the operations of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in the national airspace system until 2033 and transfers the authority to the FAA. Under the special authorization authority of Section 44807, operations conducted within 100 feet of the ground or a structure or that rely on ADSB or other technologies for deconfliction shall be considered by the FAA in an expedited manner, and operations that occur exclusively within the airspace of a Mode-C Veil shall be considered to satisfy the requirements of section 91.113(b) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, if the operations employs ADS-B-in-based detect and avoid capabilities, air traffic control communication, and an aeronautical information management system (such as NOTAM).

Section 930 – BVLOS Operations for UAS

Directs the FAA to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking within 4 months to establish a performance-based regulatory pathway for UAS to operate BVLOS. The proposed rule developed under this section shall establish acceptable levels of risk for BVLOS operations and standards for remote pilots, provide a process for the approval of associated elements of UAS, and ensure the safety of manned aviation. Within 16 months of issuing the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Administrator must issue a final rule. Contains a savings clause to ensure the agency does not need to rescope any rulemaking efforts currently underway to enable BVLOS operations in the NAS.

Section 936 – Covered Drone Prohibition

Prohibits DOT from entering into, extending, or renewing a contractor awarding a grant for the operation, procurement, or contracting action of a UAS, associated elements, or detection or counter UAS systems manufactured by a covered foreign entity to include the People’s Republic of China.

Provides exemptions and waivers in limited scenarios.

Authorizes funding to enable DOT to replace any covered UAS that is owned or operated by the Department. The prohibitions under this section are applicable to all offices and programs of the Department of Transportation.

Section 904 – Airport Safety and Airspace Hazard Mitigation and Enforcement

Extends authorities of the FAA’s Airport Safety and Airspace Hazard Mitigation and Enforcement program, which was established under sec. 383 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, through September 30, 2028. This section also amends section 44810(c) of title 49, U.S.C. by granting the FAA the flexibility necessary to deploy such technologies at other locations deemed appropriate by the FAA.

Section 929 – Applications for Designation

Amends Section 2209 of the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016 to add State prisons to the list of fixed site facilities. In addition, this section directs the Administrator to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking within 90 days in order to carry out the requirements of section 2209.

Section 935 – Protection of Public Gatherings

Grants the FAA the authority to temporarily restrict unmanned aircraft operations over eligible large public gatherings upon the request by an eligible entity. Eligible entities must request a restriction no less than 30 calendar days prior to the event.

Section 1112 – Counter-UAS

Extends the Department of Homeland Security’s and the Department of Justice’s existing counter drone authorities through October 1, 2024.

USDA Forest Service Drone Laws

The USDA FS is highly interested in new technologies and believes there is potential to fly UAS to support a host of natural resource management activities, including forest health protection, wildfire suppression, research, recreational impacts, and law enforcement.

In addition, other federal, state, and local agencies; researchers; businesses; members of the public; and others are interested in flying UAS on National Forest System lands for a variety of purposes.

The FAA has regulatory authority over all airspace.

The US Forest Service is working to integrate UAS in furthering the agency’s mission and to provide for UAS flights by other entities on National Forest System lands in alignment with FAA regulations.

The FAA and the US Forest Service consider all UAS, regardless of size or weight, to be aircraft.

All UAS flown on National Forest System lands must comply with FAA and US Forest Service laws, regulations, and policies.

Firefighting aircraft – such as air attack aircraft, lead planes, air tankers and helicopters – typically fly in smoky, windy, and turbulent conditions.

Safety depends on knowing what other aircraft are operating in the airspace and where they are always.

This is compromised by the presence of unauthorized UAS.

Tips for Drone Operators on National Forests

Whether you call it a Drone, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), or Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS), the following information applies to unmanned motorized equipment and aerial mechanical transport systems–a.k.a. drones–within most National Forests across the nation.

Individuals and organizations may fly drones for hobby or recreational purposes in compliance with Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) regulations.

Drones may be flown over and within the Coconino National Forest as long as the drone operator follows certain rules:

• Keep your drone within your visual line of sight at all times.
• Do not fly your drone within 5 miles of a towered airport (unless authorization from the Airport Manager is obtained).
• Drones must be flown below 400 feet and remain clear of surrounding obstacles.
• Drones are not permitted to fly in areas that have Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs), in place. Operators are responsible for knowing what TFRs are currently in place.
• Never fly your drone over or in close proximity to any fire operation (wildfire or prescribed burn). It is illegal to do so, and flights over fire operations disrupt aerial firefighting operations, creating hazardous conditions and grounding aerial resources, which means they can’t fight the fire any longer. Individuals who fly a drone without authorization over wildfires may be violating federal, state, and/or local laws, regulations, and ordinances, whether a TFR is in place or not. All unauthorized drone flights over wildfires on National Forest System lands will be reported to the FAA and law enforcement agencies. Individuals who have been determined to have endangered manned aircraft or people on the ground with a drone and/or interfered with wildfire suppression may be subject to civil penalties, including fines above $25,000, and potentially criminal prosecution. In short–don’t do it.
• The Forest Service regularly flies aircraft at low altitudes to perform natural resource management. It is the drone operator’s responsibility to be aware of these flights and take the steps necessary to avoid them. Contact the local Ranger District Office or the FAA for scheduled flights in the area.
• Do not fly over or near wildlife as this can create stress that may cause significant harm, and even death. Intentional disturbance of animals during breeding, nesting, rearing of young, or other critical life history functions is not allowed unless approved as research or management.
• Launch your drone more than 100 meters (328 feet) from wildlife.  Do not approach animals or birds vertically with your drone.
• The FAA is the authorizing agency for all U.S. airspace. New regulations regarding UAS (drones) can happen any time, so it’s your responsibility to check with the FAA for current specific rules and regulations.
• Wilderness areas have specific regulations, which are below:

Wilderness Areas

Drones cannot launch from, land in, or be operated from a designated Wilderness Area. This does not mean drones cannot fly over a Wilderness Area, but there are a couple of considerations you should take as a drone operator in that case. Designated Wilderness Areas are places people specifically seek out for the solitude and quiet they provide. Please be respectful and fly high enough (up to 400 feet) to respect the tranquility that should be reserved for Wilderness Areas.

Broadcast Media Drone Use

When accredited media wants to use a drone to cover a story on the Coconino National Forest land, they should contact the Public Affairs Officer.  The PAO will coordinate with the Fire & Aviation Air Resource Manager to make sure Fire Dispatch and District personnel are aware of the request and upcoming use. Any drone use by media to cover a story on a current wildfire will need to be coordinated through the Incident Management Team (IMT) assigned to the wildfire, which has its own public affairs staff and air resource manager. National Forest PAOs can get media representatives connected to the right contacts on IMTs.

For a complete set of rules you can visit the USDA FS Website.

National Park Service UAS Laws

UAS use has sometimes resulted in noise and nuisance complaints from park visitors, park visitor safety concerns, and one documented incident in which park wildlife were harassed.

Small drones have crashed in geysers in Yellowstone National Park, attempted to land on the features of Mount Rushmore National Memorial, been lost over the edge of the Grand Canyon, and been stopped from flying in Prohibited Airspace over the Mall in Washington DC.

Policy Memorandum 14-05, released by the NPS director in June 2014, directed each superintendent to use the authority under 36 CFR 1.5 to prohibit the launching, landing, or operation of unmanned aircraft, subject to the certain conditions and exceptions set forth in the memo.

This is still in force with a very few exceptions.

This action applies to the launching, landing, and operation of unmanned aircraft on lands and waters administered by the NPS.

Jurisdiction by the NPS ends at the park boundary.

The policy memorandum does not modify any requirement imposed by the FAA on the use or operation of unmanned aircraft in the NAS.

US Fish and Wildlife Drone Laws

US Fish and Wildlife laws

Launching, landing or disturbing wildlife by aircraft (drones) on national wildlife refuges is prohibited.

Drone operators should not rely solely on applications such as AirMap, DJI Go or B4UFly to determine if a location is legal for drone use.

Such applications do not always capture accurate locations of public lands where drones are prohibited.

Contact the refuge manager if you have questions.

The use of drones on or from refuge-administered lands for the purpose of taking commercial photography requires a permit in accordance with 43 CFR 5.1-12

Tribal Sovereignty and Drones

US Constitution Article 1 Section 8 – “The Congress shall have Power To … regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”

Navajo Nation Drone laws – The Navajo Nation Transportation UAV Policy (RDCD-107-18) was approved on December 27, 2018.

Navajo Nation Parks and Recreation – permits

2016 – Protecting Tribal Skies: Why Indian Tribes possess the Sovereign Authority to regulate Tribal Airspace

Environmental Laws

2021 – FACT SHEET: President Biden Sets 2030 Greenhouse Gas Pollution Reduction Target Aimed at Creating Good-Paying Union Jobs and Securing U.S. Leadership on Clean Energy Technologies

2021 – United States Aviation Climate Action Plan

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was signed into law on January 1, 1970 and requires the FAA to ensure that environmental considerations are factored into its decision-making process.

NEPA reviews must be completed for actions that could cause reasonably foreseeable effects on the human environment, whether the actions are taken by the agency itself, or the actions are taken by airspace users seeking FAA authorization.

The NEPA process ensures that:

• FAA decision makers understand the potential environmental impacts of proposed authorizations
• FAA fully discloses the potential impacts to the human environment from the proposed activities
• FAA evaluates the reasonable alternatives to the proposed activities

The FAA is conducting NEPA reviews for advanced drone operations that are being proposed to the FAA for authorization.

Refer to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Drones for more information.

Bringing More Clean Energy to Our Electric Grid

The Department of Energy (DOE) is making critical investments in the nation’s electric grid to lower the cost of energy, all while enabling cleaner energy sources, less pollution, and an easier time installing solar panels or plugging in an electric vehicle at home.

In the largest grid investments in history, on October 18, 2023, DOE announced up to $3.46 billion for 58 projects across 44 states to strengthen electric grid resilience and reliability across the United States, all while improving climate resilience and creating good-paying union jobs.

These projects will leverage more than $8 billion in federal and private investments as part of the Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) Program, funded through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and administered by DOE’s Grid Deployment Office (GDO).

Across the selected projects, there are various strategies to increase the integration of renewables, in total allowing more than 35 gigawatts of renewable energy to be brought online and expand the country’s renewable energy capacity by 10.5%.

The projects also will enhance grid flexibility, meaning that operators can balance different types of power in real time and in response to real conditions to help keep the power on and prices affordable.

Read more – Nov 2023 – Bringing More Clean Energy to Our Electric Grid

National Blueprint for Lithium Batteries

The Biden Administration has laid out a bold agenda to address the climate crisis and build a clean and equitable energy economy that achieves carbon-pollution-free electricity by 2035, and puts the US on a path to achieve net-zero emissions, economy-wide, by no later than 2050 to the benefit of all Americans.

Lithium-based batteries power our daily lives from consumer electronics to national defense.

They enable electrification of the transportation sector and provide stationary grid storage, critical to developing the clean-energy economy.

The US has a strong research community, a robust innovation infrastructure for technological advancement of batteries, and an emerging lithium-based, battery manufacturing industry.

Establishing a domestic supply chain for lithium-based batteries requires a national commitment to both solving breakthrough scientific challenges for new materials and developing a manufacturing base that meets the demands of the growing electric vehicle (EV) and stationary grid storage markets.

This National Blueprint for Lithium Batteries, developed by the Federal Consortium for Advanced Batteries will help guide investments to develop a domestic lithium-battery manufacturing value chain that creates equitable clean-energy manufacturing jobs in America while helping to mitigate climate change impacts.

UAS Litigation

Short Essay Questions