1 United States

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

The United States is a member of ICAO and JARUS.
Last updated on October 1, 2024

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.

The First Amendment, for example, provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Though the First Amendment’s language appears absolute, it has been interpreted to mean that the federal government (and later the state governments) cannot place undue restrictions on individual liberties but can regulate speech, religion, and other rights.

The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Presidential Memorandum: Promoting Economic Competitiveness While Safeguarding Privacy, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties in Domestic Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems – 2015

Secure Your Drone: Privacy and Data Protection Guidance – Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) developed this guidance to equip drone users and stakeholders with recommendations to protect their data and minimize privacy risks before, during, and after flying their drone. The guidance also includes an overview of the connected components of a drone – components that gather and communicate information via the internet or Bluetooth and are vulnerable to exploitation. Lastly, the guidance points to additional tools and resources, such as cybersecurity best practices, FAA information, and reporting recommendations.- 2023

 

The Second and Third amendments, which, respectively, guarantee the people’s right to bear arms and limit the quartering of soldiers in private houses, reflect the hostility of the framers to standing armies.

 

The Fourth through Eighth amendments establish the rights of the criminally accused, including safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures, protection from double jeopardy (being tried twice for the same offense), the right to refuse to testify against oneself, and the right to a trial by jury.
The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. The government may not conduct any searches without a warrant, and such warrants must be issued by a judge and based on probable cause. This right is infringed upon when the government invades an area where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. According to the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS), your home is reasonable per Silverman v. US. Over the years judges have deemed that law enforcement personnel may not need to obtain a warrant in the case of emergency or exigent circumstances where people may be hurt or evidence may be destroyed. Also, to name a few others, a warrant is unnecessary:
(1) if a person who has authority over the area voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently gives consent to the search;
(2) when the search is incident to a lawful arrest;
(3) when law enforcement has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity they can stop and frisk;
(4) when law enforcement is lawfully in a location and sees it in plain view; and
(5) in an automobile if law enforcement has probable cause.
If law enforcement obtains evidence unlawfully, it is considered fruit of the poisonous tree, and is excluded from court. In Florida v. Riley and California v. Ciraolo the SCOTUS held that aerial surveillance of private homes and its curtilage (the immediate surrounding area) was not a search. And in Dow Chemical Co. v. US the SCOTUS held that aerial surveillance of a business property was not a search. SCOTUS held the opposite was true in Kyllo v. US because the government employed an uncommonly used device! In US v. Jones, the SCOTUS applied the same logic to GPS and in Carpenter v. US, to cell site location information. The opposite is true however when we voluntarily consent to providing said information to third party providers, according to Smith v. Maryland.

 

The Ninth and Tenth amendments underscore the general rights of the people. The Ninth Amendment protects the unenumerated residual rights of the people (i.e., those not explicitly granted in the Constitution), and the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states or to the people those powers not delegated to the US nor denied to the states.

The guarantees of the Bill of Rights are steeped in controversy, and debate continues over the limits that the federal government may appropriately place on individuals. One source of conflict has been the ambiguity in the wording of many of the Constitution’s provisions, such as the Second Amendment’s right “to keep and bear arms” and the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishments.” Also problematic is the Tenth Amendment’s apparent contradiction of the body of the Constitution; Article I, Section 8, enumerates the powers of Congress but also allows that it may make all laws “which shall be necessary and proper,” while the Tenth Amendment stipulates that “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The distinction between what powers should be left to the states or to the people and what is a necessary and proper law for Congress to pass has not always been clear.

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

Executive branch Legislative branch Judicial branch
POTUS issues:

Executive Orders

Presidential Memoranda

Proclamations

Published in Federal Register

2 chambers – house and senate

House – 435 members elected

Senate 100 members elected

Several committees and subcommittees perform the work creating bills that become law

SCOTUS – supreme law of the land

Courts of Appeal (13)

Federal District Courts (94)

 

US Constitution Article II Section 3 US Constitution Article I US Constitution Article III Section 1

 

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.

US Airspace Classification

Photo from FAA PHAK, Chapter 15

 

Controlled Airspace

Class A Airspace

Generally the airspace from 18,000 feet MSL up to and including flight level (FL) 600, including the airspace overlying the waters within 12 nautical miles (NM) of the coast of the 48 contiguous states and Alaska.

Unless otherwise authorized, all operation in Class A airspace is conducted under instrument flight rules (IFR).

Class B Airspace

Generally airspace from the surface to 10,000 feet MSL surrounding the nation’s busiest airports in terms of airport operations or passenger enplanements.

The configuration of each Class B airspace area is individually tailored, consists of a surface area and two or more layers (some Class B airspace areas resemble upside-down wedding cakes), and is designed to contain all published instrument procedures once an aircraft enters the airspace.

ATC clearance is required for all aircraft to operate in the area, and all aircraft that are so cleared receive separation services within the airspace.

Class C Airspace

Generally airspace from the surface to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation (charted in MSL) surrounding those airports that have an operational control tower, are serviced by a radar approach control, and have a certain number of IFR operations or passenger enplanements.

Although the configuration of each Class C area is individually tailored, the airspace usually consists of a surface area with a five NM radius, an outer circle with a ten NM radius that extends from 1,200 feet to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation.

Each aircraft must establish two-way radio communications with the ATC facility providing air traffic services prior to entering the airspace and thereafter must maintain those communications while within the airspace.

Class D Airspace

Generally airspace from the surface to 2,500 feet above the airport elevation (charted in MSL) surrounding those airports that have an operational control tower.

The configuration of each Class D airspace area is individually tailored and, when instrument procedures are published, the airspace is normally designed to contain the procedures.

Arrival extensions for instrument approach procedures (IAPs) may be Class D or Class E airspace.

Unless otherwise authorized, each aircraft must establish two-way radio communications with the ATC facility providing air traffic services prior to entering the airspace and thereafter maintain those communications while in the airspace.

Class E Airspace

The controlled airspace not classified as Class A, B, C, or D airspace.

A large amount of the airspace over the United States is designated as Class E airspace.

This provides sufficient airspace for the safe control and separation of aircraft during IFR operations.

Chapter 3 of the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) explains the various types of Class E airspace.

Sectional and other charts depict all locations of Class E airspace with bases below 14,500 feet MSL.

In areas where charts do not depict a class E base, class E begins at 14,500 feet MSL.

In most areas, the Class E airspace base is 1,200 feet AGL.

In many other areas, the Class E airspace base is either the surface or 700 feet AGL.

Some Class E airspace begins at an MSL altitude depicted on the charts, instead of an AGL altitude.

Class E airspace typically extends up to, but not including, 18,000 feet MSL (the lower limit of Class A airspace).

All airspace above FL 600 is Class E airspace.

Uncontrolled Airspace

Class G Airspace

Uncontrolled airspace or Class G airspace is the portion of the airspace that has not been designated as Class A, B, C, D, or E.

It is therefore designated uncontrolled airspace.

Class G airspace extends from the surface to the base of the overlying Class E airspace.

Although ATC has no authority or responsibility to control air traffic, pilots should remember there are visual flight rules (VFR) minimums that apply to Class G airspace.

Special Use Airspace

Special use airspace or special area of operation (SAO) is the designation for airspace in which certain activities must be confined, or where limitations may be imposed on aircraft operations that are not part of those activities.

Certain special use airspace areas can create limitations on the mixed use of airspace.

The special use airspace depicted on instrument charts includes the area name or number, effective altitude, time and weather conditions of operation, the controlling agency, and the chart panel location.

On National Aeronautical Charting Group (NACG) en route charts, this information is available on one of the end panels.

Special use airspace usually consists of:

• Prohibited areas

• Restricted areas

• Warning areas

• Military operation areas (MOAs)

• Alert areas

• Controlled firing areas (CFAs)

Prohibited Areas

Contain airspace of defined dimensions within which the flight of aircraft is prohibited.

Such areas are established for security or other reasons associated with the national welfare.

These areas are published in the Federal Register and are depicted on aeronautical charts.

The area is charted as a “P” followed by a number (e.g., P-40).

Examples of prohibited areas include Camp David and the National Mall in Washington, D.C., where the White House and the Congressional buildings are located.

Photo from FAA PHAK, Chapter 15

Restricted Areas

Areas where operations are hazardous to nonparticipating aircraft and contain airspace within which the flight of aircraft, while not wholly prohibited, is subject to restrictions.

Activities within these areas must be confined because of their nature, or limitations may be imposed upon aircraft operations that are not a part of those activities, or both.

Restricted areas denote the existence of unusual, often invisible, hazards to aircraft (e.g., artillery firing, aerial gunnery, or guided missiles).

IFR flights may be authorized to transit the airspace and are routed accordingly.

Penetration of restricted areas without authorization from the using or controlling agency may be extremely hazardous to the aircraft and its occupants.

ATC facilities apply the following procedures when aircraft are operating on an IFR clearance (including those cleared by ATC to maintain VFR on top) via a route that lies within joint-use restricted airspace:

1. If the restricted area is not active and has been released to the FAA, the ATC facility allows the aircraft to operate in the restricted airspace without issuing specific clearance for it to do so.

2. If the restricted area is active and has not been released to the FAA, the ATC facility issues a clearance that ensures the aircraft avoids the restricted airspace.

Restricted areas are charted with an “R” followed by a number (e.g., R-4401) and are depicted on the en route chart appropriate for use at the altitude or FL being flown.

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

 

 

Warning Areas

Similar in nature to restricted areas; however, the US government does not have sole jurisdiction over the airspace.

A warning area is airspace of defined dimensions, extending from 3 NM outward from the coast of the United States, containing activity that may be hazardous to nonparticipating aircraft.

The purpose of such areas is to warn nonparticipating pilots of the potential danger.

A warning area may be located over domestic or international waters or both.

The airspace is designated with a “W” followed by a number (e.g., W-237).

Photo from FAA PHAK, Chapter 15

Military Operation Areas (MOAs)

MOAs consist of airspace with defined vertical and lateral limits established for the purpose of separating certain military training activities from IFR traffic.

Whenever an MOA is being used, nonparticipating IFR traffic may be cleared through an MOA if IFR separation can be provided by ATC. Otherwise, ATC reroutes or restricts nonparticipating IFR traffic.

MOAs are depicted on sectional, VFR terminal area, and en route low altitude charts and are not numbered (e.g., “Camden Ridge MOA”).

However, the MOA is also further defined on the back of the sectional charts with times of operation, altitudes affected, and the controlling agency.

Photo from FAA PHAK, Chapter 15

Alert Areas

Depicted on aeronautical charts with an “A” followed by a number (e.g., A-211) to inform nonparticipating pilots of areas that may contain a high volume of pilot training or an unusual type of aerial activity.

Pilots should exercise caution in alert areas.

All activity within an alert area shall be conducted in accordance with regulations, without waiver, and pilots of participating aircraft, as well as pilots transiting the area, shall be equally responsible for collision avoidance.

Photo from FAA PHAK, Chapter 15

Controlled Firing Areas (CFAs)

CFAs contain activities that, if not conducted in a controlled environment, could be hazardous to nonparticipating aircraft.

The difference between CFAs and other special use airspace is that activities must be suspended when a spotter aircraft, radar, or ground lookout position indicates an aircraft might be approaching the area.

There is no need to chart CFAs since they do not cause a nonparticipating aircraft to change its flight path.

Other Airspace Areas

General term referring to the majority of the remaining airspace.

It includes:

• Local airport advisory (LAA)

• Military training route (MTR)

• Temporary flight restriction (TFR)

• Parachute jump aircraft operations

• Published VFR routes

• Terminal radar service area (TRSA)

• National security area (NSA)

• Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ) land and water based and need for Defense VFR (DVFR) flight plan to operate VFR in this airspace

• Intercept Procedures and use of 121.5 for communication if not on ATC already Flight Restricted Zones (FRZ) in vicinity of Capitol and White House

• Special Awareness Training required by 14 CFR 91.161 for pilots to operate VFR within 60 NM of the Washington, DC VOR/DME

• Wildlife Areas/Wilderness Areas/National Parks and request to operate above 2,000 AGL

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Marine Areas off the coast with requirement to operate above 2,000 AGL

• Tethered Balloons for observation and weather recordings that extend on cables up to 60,000

Local Airport Advisory (LAA)

An advisory service provided by Flight Service Station (FSS) facilities, which are located on the landing airport, using a discrete ground-to-air frequency or the tower frequency when the tower is closed.

LAA services include local airport advisories, automated weather reporting with voice broadcasting, and a continuous Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS)/Automated Weather Observing Station (AWOS) data display, other continuous direct reading instruments, or manual observations available to the specialist.

Military Training Routes (MTRs)

MTRs are routes used by military aircraft to maintain proficiency in tactical flying.

These routes are usually established below 10,000 feet MSL for operations at speeds in excess of 250 knots.

Some route segments may be defined at higher altitudes for purposes of route continuity.

Routes are identified as IFR (IR), and VFR (VR), followed by a number.

MTRs with no segment above 1,500 feet AGL are identified by four number characters (e.g., IR1206, VR1207).

MTRs that include one or more segments above 1,500 feet AGL are identified by three number characters (e.g., IR206, VR207).

IFR low altitude en route charts depict all IR routes and all VR routes that accommodate operations above 1,500 feet AGL.

IR routes are conducted in accordance with IFR regardless of weather conditions.

VFR sectional charts depict military training activities, such as IR, VR, MOA, restricted area, warning area, and alert area information.

Photo from FAA PHAK, Chapter 15

Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFR)

A flight data center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) is issued to designate a TFR.

The NOTAM begins with the phrase “FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS” followed by the location of the temporary restriction, effective time period, area defined in statute miles, and altitudes affected. The NOTAM also contains the FAA coordination facility and telephone number, the reason for the restriction, and any other information deemed appropriate.

The pilot should check the NOTAMs as part of flight planning.

Some of the purposes for establishing a TFR are:

• Protect persons and property in the air or on the surface from an existing or imminent hazard.

• Provide a safe environment for the operation of disaster relief aircraft.

• Prevent an unsafe congestion of sightseeing aircraft above an incident or event, that may generate a high degree of public interest.

• Protect declared national disasters for humanitarian reasons in the State of Hawaii.

• Protect the President, Vice President, or other public figures.

• Provide a safe environment for space agency operations.

Since the events of September 11, 2001, the use of TFRs has become much more common.

There have been a number of incidents of aircraft incursions into TFRs that have resulted in pilots undergoing security investigations and certificate suspensions.

It is a pilot’s responsibility to be aware of TFRs in their proposed area of flight.

One way to check is to visit the FAA website, and verify that there is not a TFR in the area.

Parachute Jump Aircraft Operations

Published in the Chart Supplement U.S. (formerly Airport/Facility Directory). Sites that are used frequently are depicted on sectional charts.

Published VFR Routes

For transitioning around, under, or through some complex airspace.

Terms such as VFR flyway, VFR corridor, Class B airspace VFR transition route, and terminal area VFR route have been applied to such routes.

These routes are generally found on VFR terminal area planning charts.

Terminal Radar Service Areas (TRSAs)

TRSAs are areas where participating pilots can receive additional radar services.

The purpose of the service is to provide separation between all IFR operations and participating VFR aircraft.

The primary airport(s) within the TRSA become(s) Class D airspace.

The remaining portion of the TRSA overlies other controlled airspace, which is normally Class E airspace beginning at 700 or 1,200 feet and established to transition to/ from the en route/terminal environment.

TRSAs are depicted on VFR sectional charts and terminal area charts with a solid black line and altitudes for each segment.

The Class D portion is charted with a blue segmented line.

Participation in TRSA services is voluntary; however, pilots operating under VFR are encouraged to contact the radar approach control and take advantage of TRSA service.

National Security Areas (NSAs)

NSAs consist of airspace of defined vertical and lateral dimensions established at locations where there is a requirement for increased security and safety of ground facilities.

Flight in NSAs may be temporarily prohibited by regulation under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 99, and prohibitions are disseminated via NOTAM.

Pilots are requested to voluntarily avoid flying through these depicted areas.

 

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

 

Informed by the FAA’s draft vision document, Charting Aviation’s Future: Operations in an Info-Centric NAS

Describes future operations in the NAS, with initial capabilities expected to be operational by approximately 2035

Provides a high level description of the integrated future environment

Level 1 concept for the enterprise in accordance with the FAA’s Operational Concept Hierarchy

Broad in scope and describes NAS operations in general terms, serving as the frame of reference for lower-level concepts

 

 

 

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

 

The FAA recognizes 4 kinds of drone flyer:

(1) Recreational

The law requires that all recreational flyers pass an aeronautical knowledge and safety test and provide proof of passage if asked by law enforcement or FAA personnel. The Recreational UAS Safety Test, TRUST, was developed to meet this requirement.

(2) Educational

(3) Government and Public Safety

This includes Federal, State, Tribal, and Territorial Agencies, law enforcement, and public safety entities. These are defined in AC 00-1.1B – Public Aircraft Operations – Manned and Unmanned.

(4) Commercial

 

 

 

Learn how the FAA processes UAS requests with JO 7200.23D – Processing of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Requests.

This order provides guidance for Headquarters, Service Centers, and Air Traffic Managers on air traffic policies and prescribes procedures for the planning, coordination, and services involving the processing of applications for the operation of UAS in the NAS.

Unless otherwise indicated in this order, all applications are processed at the Service Centers.

However, in the case of certain high priority applications, the Headquarters may choose to process the application.

This order establishes air traffic policy for the processing of authorization and waiver requests for UAS operations in the NAS.

An unmanned aircraft system that is operated underground for mining purposes must not be subject to regulation or enforcement by the FAA under title 49, United States Code, Section 355.

 

 

 

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

All drones must be registered, except those that weigh 0.55 pounds or less (less than 250 grams) and are flown exclusively under the Exception for Recreational Flyers

Drones registered under part 107 may be flown for recreational purposes as well as under part 107

Drones registered under the Exception for Recreational Flyers cannot be flown for Part 107 operations

All drone pilots required to register their drone must operate their aircraft in accordance with the Remote Identification rule for pilots

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.

 

Information Needed to Register

  • Physical address and mailing address (if different from physical address)
  • Email address
  • Phone number
  • Make and model of your drone
  • Specific Remote ID serial number provided by the manufacturer (if applicable)
  • Credit or debit card

Registration Fees

  • Part 107 registration costs $5 per drone and is valid for three (3) years.
  • The Exception for Recreational Flyers registration costs $5 and is valid for three (3) years.
  • Once registered, drone registration cannot be transferred between types (part 107 or the Exception for Recreational Flyers).

Registration Requirements

  • 13 years of age or older (if the owner is less than 13 years of age, a person 13 years of age or older must register the drone)
  • U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident.
  • For foreign operators, FAA will consider the certificate issued to be a recognition of ownership rather than a certificate of U.S. aircraft registration.

Where to Register

After You Register

Once you register your drone, you will receive an FAA registration certificate.

You must have your registration certificate (either a paper copy or digital copy) in your possession when you fly.

If another individual operates your drone, they must have your drone registration certificate (either a paper or digital copy) in their possession.

Federal law requires drone operators who are required to register, to show their certificate of registration to any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer if asked.

Failure to register a drone that requires registration may result in regulatory and criminal penalties.

The FAA may assess civil penalties up to $27,500.

Criminal penalties include fines of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment for up to three (3) years.

Label Your Drone

The FAA requires that you mark all drones with your registration number before you fly them. Here is how to label your drone:

  • Label your drone (PDF)
  • Must be maintained in a condition that is legible.
  • Must be affixed to the small unmanned aircraft by any means necessary to ensure that it will remain affixed for the duration of each operation.
  • Must be legibly displayed on an external surface of the small unmanned aircraft.

Renew Your Drone Registration

When your drone registration expires, you need to renew your registration at the FAA DroneZone. If you are having trouble logging into the DroneZone, you may need to reset your password (PDF). Be sure to use the email address you used when you originally registered your drone with the FAA.

Additional Information

geographic list of drone registry enrollments and registrants

 

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

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 89 – Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft

 

AC 89-1 – Means 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.

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 89-1 – Means of Compliance Process for Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft

 

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.

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 89-2 – Declaration of Compliance Process for Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft

 

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

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 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

 

 

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

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.

The FAA has been tasked with safely integrating UAS operations in the NAS.

FAA Order 8040.6A, UAS Safety Risk Management (SRM) Policy supplements FAA Order 8040.4, Safety Risk Management Policy by establishing a methodology for conducting SRM when required.

This Order establishes governance and triage steps for all requests to operate UAS received by FAA lines of business (LOB) and defines SRM steps for the Aviation Safety (AVS) organization.

SRM is one of the four components of a Safety Management System (SMS).

The objective of SRM is to provide information regarding hazards, safety risks, and safety risk controls to decision-makers to enhance the FAA’s ability to address safety risks in the NAS.

 

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:

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)

 

Subpart A – General

§ 107.1 Applicability.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this part applies to the registration, airman certification, and operation of civil SUAS within the US. This part also applies to the eligibility of civil SUAS to operate over human beings in the US.

(b) This part does not apply to the following:

(1) Air carrier operations;

(2) Any aircraft subject to the provisions of 49 USC 44809;

(3) Any operation that the holder of an exemption under section 333 of Public Law 112-95 or 49 USC 44807 elects to conduct pursuant to the exemption, unless otherwise specified in the exemption; or

(4) Any operation that a person elects to conduct under part 91 of this chapter with a SUAS that has been issued an airworthiness certificate.

§ 107.2 Applicability of certification procedures for products and articles.

The provisions of part 21 of this chapter do not apply to SUAS operated under this part unless the SUAS will operate over human beings in accordance with § 107.140.

§ 107.3 Definitions.

The following definitions apply to this part. If there is a conflict between the definitions of this part and definitions specified in § 1.1 of this chapter, the definitions in this part control for purposes of this part:

Control station means an interface used by the remote pilot to control the flight path of the SUA.

Corrective lenses means spectacles or contact lenses.

Declaration of compliance means a record submitted to the FAA that certifies the SUA conforms to the Category 2 or Category 3 requirements under subpart D of this part.

Small unmanned aircraft means an UA weighing less than 55 pounds on takeoff, including everything that is on board or otherwise attached to the aircraft.

Small unmanned aircraft system (SUAS) means a SUA and its associated elements (including communication links and the components that control the SUA) that are required for the safe and efficient operation of the SUA in the NAS.

Unmanned aircraft means an aircraft operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft.

Visual observer means a person who is designated by the RPIC to assist the RPIC and the person manipulating the flight controls of the SUAS to see and avoid other air traffic or objects aloft or on the ground.

§ 107.5 Falsification, reproduction, or alteration.

(a) No person may make or cause to be made –

(1) Any fraudulent or intentionally false record or report that is required to be made, kept, or used to show compliance with any requirement under this part.

(2) Any reproduction or alteration, for fraudulent purpose, of any certificate, rating, authorization, record, or report under this part.

(b) The commission by any person of an act prohibited under paragraph (a) of this section is a basis for any of the following:

(1) Denial of an application for a remote pilot certificate or a certificate of waiver;

(2) Denial of a DOC;

(3) Suspension or revocation of any certificate, waiver, or DOC issued or accepted by the Administrator under this part and held by that person; or

(4) A civil penalty.

§ 107.7 Inspection, testing, and demonstration of compliance.

(a) A RPIC, owner, or person manipulating the flight controls of a SUAS must –

(1) Have in that person’s physical possession and readily accessible the remote pilot certificate with a SUAS rating and identification when exercising the privileges of that remote pilot certificate.

(2) Present his or her remote pilot certificate with a SUAS rating and identification that contains the information listed at § 107.67(b)(1) through (3) for inspection upon a request from –

(i) The Administrator;

(ii) An authorized representative of the NTSB;

(iii) Any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer; or

(iv) An authorized representative of the TSA.

(3) Make available, upon request, to the Administrator any document, record, or report required to be kept under the regulations of this chapter.

(b) The RPIC, VO, owner, operator, or person manipulating the flight controls of a SUAS must, upon request, allow the Administrator to make any test or inspection of the SUAS, the RPIC, the person manipulating the flight controls of a SUAS, and, if applicable, the VO to determine compliance with this part.

(c) Any person holding an FAA-accepted DOC under subpart D of this part must, upon request, make available to the Administrator:

(1) The DOC required under subpart D of this part; and

(2) Any other document, record, or report required to be kept under the regulations of this chapter.

(d) Any person holding an FAA-accepted DOC under subpart D of this part must, upon request, allow the Administrator to inspect its facilities, technical data, and any manufactured SUAS and witness any tests necessary to determine compliance with that subpart.

§ 107.9 Accident reporting.

No later than 10 calendar days after an operation that meets the criteria of either paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, a RPIC must report to the FAA, in a manner acceptable to the Administrator, any operation of the SUA involving at least:

(a) Serious injury to any person or any loss of consciousness; or

(b) Damage to any property, other than the SUA, unless one of the following conditions is satisfied:

(1) The cost of repair (including materials and labor) does not exceed $500; or

(2) The fair market value of the property does not exceed $500 in the event of total loss.

Subpart B – Operating Rules

§ 107.11 Applicability.

This subpart applies to the operation of all civil SUAS subject to this part.

§ 107.12 Requirement for a remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may manipulate the flight controls of a SUAS unless:

(1) That person has a remote pilot certificate with a SUAS rating issued pursuant to subpart C of this part and satisfies the requirements of § 107.65; or

(2) That person is under the direct supervision of a RPIC and the RPIC has the ability to immediately take direct control of the flight of the SUA.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may act as a RPIC unless that person has a remote pilot certificate with a SUAS rating issued pursuant to Subpart C of this part and satisfies the requirements of § 107.65.

(c) The Administrator may, consistent with international standards, authorize an airman to operate a civil foreign-registered SUA without an FAA-issued remote pilot certificate with a SUAS rating.

§ 107.13 Registration.

A person operating a civil SUAS for purposes of flight must comply with the provisions of § 91.203(a)(2) of this chapter.

§ 107.15 Condition for safe operation.

(a) No person may operate a civil SUAS unless it is in a condition for safe operation. Prior to each flight, the RPIC must check the SUAS to determine whether it is in a condition for safe operation.

(b) No person may continue flight of the SUA when he or she knows or has reason to know that the SUAS is no longer in a condition for safe operation.

§ 107.17 Medical condition.

No person may manipulate the flight controls of a SUAS or act as a RPIC, VO, or direct participant in the operation of the SUA if he or she knows or has reason to know that he or she has a physical or mental condition that would interfere with the safe operation of the SUAS.

§ 107.19 Remote pilot in command.

(a) A RPIC must be designated before or during the flight of the SUA.

(b) The RPIC is directly responsible for and is the final authority as to the operation of the SUAS.

(c) The RPIC must ensure that the SUA will pose no undue hazard to other people, other aircraft, or other property in the event of a loss of control of the SUA for any reason.

(d) The RPIC must ensure that the SUAS operation complies with all applicable regulations of this chapter.

(e) The RPIC must have the ability to direct the SUA to ensure compliance with the applicable provisions of this chapter.

§ 107.21 In-flight emergency.

(a) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the RPIC may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent necessary to meet that emergency.

(b) Each RPIC who deviates from a rule under paragraph (a) of this section must, upon request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator.

§ 107.23 Hazardous operation.

No person may:

(a) Operate a SUAS in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another; or

(b) Allow an object to be dropped from a SUA in a manner that creates an undue hazard to persons or property.

§ 107.25 Operation from a moving vehicle or aircraft.

No person may operate a SUAS –

(a) From a moving aircraft; or

(b) From a moving land or water-borne vehicle unless the SUA is flown over a sparsely populated area and is not transporting another person’s property for compensation or hire.

§ 107.27 Alcohol or drugs.

A person manipulating the flight controls of a SUAS or acting as a RPIC, or VO must comply with the provisions of §§ 91.17 and 91.19 of this chapter.

§ 107.29 Operation at night.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may operate a SUAS at night unless –

(1) The RPIC of the SUA has completed an initial knowledge test or training, as applicable, under § 107.65 after April 6, 2021; and

(2) The SUA has lighted anti-collision lighting visible for at least 3 statute miles that has a flash rate sufficient to avoid a collision. The RPIC may reduce the intensity of, but may not extinguish, the anti-collision lighting if he or she determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the interest of safety to do so.

(b) No person may operate a SUAS during periods of civil twilight unless the SUA has lighted anti-collision lighting visible for at least 3 statute miles that has a flash rate sufficient to avoid a collision. The RPIC may reduce the intensity of, but may not extinguish, the anti-collision lighting if he or she determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the interest of safety to do so.

(c) For purposes of paragraph (b) of this section, civil twilight refers to the following:

(1) Except for Alaska, a period of time that begins 30 minutes before official sunrise and ends at official sunrise;

(2) Except for Alaska, a period of time that begins at official sunset and ends 30 minutes after official sunset; and

(3) In Alaska, the period of civil twilight as defined in the Air Almanac.

(d) After May 17, 2021, no person may operate a SUAS at night in accordance with a certificate of waiver issued prior to April 21, 2021, under § 107.200. The certificates of waiver issued prior to March 16, 2021, under § 107.200 that authorize deviation from § 107.29 terminate on May 17, 2021.

§ 107.31 Visual line of sight aircraft operation.

(a) With vision that is unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, the RPIC, the VO (if one is used), and the person manipulating the flight control of the SUAS must be able to see the UA throughout the entire flight in order to:

(1) Know the UA’s location;

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

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

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

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

(1) The RPIC and the person manipulating the flight controls of the SUAS; or

(2) A VO.

§ 107.33 Visual observer.

If a VO is used during the aircraft operation, all of the following requirements must be met:

(a) The RPIC, the person manipulating the flight controls of the SUAS, and the VO must maintain effective communication with each other at all times.

(b) The RPIC must ensure that the VO is able to see the UA in the manner specified in § 107.31.

(c) The RPIC, the person manipulating the flight controls of the SUAS, and the VO must coordinate to do the following:

(1) Scan the airspace where the SUA is operating for any potential collision hazard; and

(2) Maintain awareness of the position of the SUA through direct visual observation.

§ 107.35 Operation of multiple SUA.

A person may not manipulate flight controls or act as a RPIC or VO in the operation of more than one UA at the same time.

§ 107.36 Carriage of hazardous material.

A SUA may not carry hazardous material. For purposes of this section, the term hazardous material is defined in 49 CFR 171.8.

§ 107.37 Operation near aircraft; right-of-way rules.

(a) Each SUA must yield the right of way to all aircraft, airborne vehicles, and launch and reentry vehicles. Yielding the right of way means that the SUA must give way to the aircraft or vehicle and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear.

(b) No person may operate a SUA so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard.

§ 107.39 Operation over human beings.

No person may operate a SUA over a human being unless –

(a) That human being is directly participating in the operation of the SUA;

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

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

§ 107.41 Operation in certain airspace.

No person may operate a SUA in Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport unless that person has prior authorization from ATC.

§ 107.43 Operation in the vicinity of airports.

No person may operate a SUA in a manner that interferes with operations and traffic patterns at any airport, heliport, or seaplane base.

§ 107.45 Operation in prohibited or restricted areas.

No person may operate a SUA in prohibited or restricted areas unless that person has permission from the using or controlling agency, as appropriate.

§ 107.47 Flight restrictions in the proximity of certain areas designated by notice to air missions.

A person acting as a RPIC must comply with the provisions of §§ 91.137 through 91.145 and 99.7 of this chapter.

§ 107.49 Preflight familiarization, inspection, and actions for aircraft operation.

Prior to flight, the RPIC must:

(a) Assess the operating environment, considering risks to persons and property in the immediate vicinity both on the surface and in the air. This assessment must include:

(1) Local weather conditions;

(2) Local airspace and any flight restrictions;

(3) The location of persons and property on the surface; and

(4) Other ground hazards.

(b) Ensure that all persons directly participating in the SUA operation are informed about the operating conditions, emergency procedures, contingency procedures, roles and responsibilities, and potential hazards;

(c) Ensure that all control links between ground control station and the SUA are working properly;

(d) If the SUA is powered, ensure that there is enough available power for the SUAS to operate for the intended operational time;

(e) Ensure that any object attached or carried by the SUA is secure and does not adversely affect the flight characteristics or controllability of the aircraft; and

(f) If the operation will be conducted over human beings under subpart D of this part, ensure that the aircraft meets the requirements of § 107.110, § 107.120(a), § 107.130(a), or § 107.140, as applicable.

§ 107.51 Operating limitations for SUA.

A RPIC and the person manipulating the flight controls of the SUAS must comply with all of the following operating limitations when operating a SUAS:

(a) The groundspeed of the SUA may not exceed 87 knots (100 miles per hour).

(b) The altitude of the SUA cannot be higher than 400 feet AGL, unless the SUA:

(1) Is flown within a 400-foot radius of a structure; and

(2) Does not fly higher than 400 feet above the structure’s immediate uppermost limit.

(c) The minimum flight visibility, as observed from the location of the control station must be no less than 3 sm. For purposes of this section, flight visibility means the average slant distance from the control station at which prominent unlighted objects may be seen and identified by day and prominent lighted objects may be seen and identified by night.

(d) The minimum distance of the SUA from clouds must be no less than:

(1) 500 feet below the cloud; and

(2) 2,000 feet horizontally from the cloud.

Subpart C – Remote Pilot Certification

§ 107.52 ATC transponder equipment prohibition.

Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may operate a SUAS under this part with a transponder on.

§ 107.53 Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out prohibition.

Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may operate a SUAS under this part with ADS-B Out equipment in transmit mode.

§ 107.56 Applicability.

This subpart prescribes the requirements for issuing a remote pilot certificate with a SUAS rating.

§ 107.57 Offenses involving alcohol or drugs.

(a) A conviction for the violation of any Federal or State statute relating to the growing, processing, manufacture, sale, disposition, possession, transportation, or importation of narcotic drugs, marijuana, or depressant or stimulant drugs or substances is grounds for:

(1) Denial of an application for a remote pilot certificate with a SUAS rating for a period of up to 1 year after the date of final conviction; or

(2) Suspension or revocation of a remote pilot certificate with a SUAS rating.

(b) Committing an act prohibited by § 91.17(a) or § 91.19(a) of this chapter is grounds for:

(1) Denial of an application for a remote pilot certificate with a SUAS rating for a period of up to 1 year after the date of that act; or

(2) Suspension or revocation of a remote pilot certificate with a SUAS rating.

§ 107.59 Refusal to submit to an alcohol test or to furnish test results.

A refusal to submit to a test to indicate the percentage by weight of alcohol in the blood, when requested by a law enforcement officer in accordance with § 91.17(c) of this chapter, or a refusal to furnish or authorize the release of the test results requested by the Administrator in accordance with § 91.17(c) or (d) of this chapter, is grounds for:

(a) Denial of an application for a remote pilot certificate with a SUAS rating for a period of up to 1 year after the date of that refusal; or

(b) Suspension or revocation of a remote pilot certificate with a SUAS rating.

§ 107.61 Eligibility.

Subject to the provisions of §§ 107.57 and 107.59, in order to be eligible for a remote pilot certificate with a SUAS rating under this subpart, a person must:

(a) Be at least 16 years of age;

(b) Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language. If the applicant is unable to meet one of these requirements due to medical reasons, the FAA may place such operating limitations on that applicant’s certificate as are necessary for the safe operation of the SUA;

(c) Not know or have reason to know that he or she has a physical or mental condition that would interfere with the safe operation of a SUAS; and

(d) Demonstrate aeronautical knowledge by satisfying one of the following conditions, in a manner acceptable to the Administrator:

(1) Pass an initial aeronautical knowledge test covering the areas of knowledge specified in § 107.73; or

(2) If a person holds a pilot certificate (other than a student pilot certificate) issued under part 61 of this chapter and meets the flight review requirements specified in § 61.56, complete training covering the areas of knowledge specified in § 107.74.

§ 107.63 Issuance of a remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating.

An applicant for a remote pilot certificate with a SUAS rating under this subpart must make the application in a form and manner acceptable to the Administrator.

(a) The application must include either:

(1) Evidence showing that the applicant passed an initial aeronautical knowledge test. If applying using a paper application, this evidence must be an airman knowledge test report showing passage of the knowledge test; or

(2) If a person holds a pilot certificate (other than a student pilot certificate) issued under part 61 of this chapter and meets the flight review requirements specified in § 61.56, a certificate of completion of an initial training course under this part that covers the areas of knowledge specified in § 107.74.

(b) If the application is being made pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section:

(1) The application must be submitted to the responsible Flight Standards office, a designated pilot examiner, an airman certification representative for a pilot school, a certificated flight instructor, or other person authorized by the Administrator;

(2) The person accepting the application submission must verify the identity of the applicant in a manner acceptable to the Administrator; and

(3) The person making the application must, by logbook endorsement or other manner acceptable to the Administrator, show the applicant meets the flight review requirements specified in § 61.56 of this chapter.

§ 107.64 Temporary certificate.

(a) A temporary remote pilot certificate with a SUAS rating is issued for up to 120 calendar days, at which time a permanent certificate will be issued to a person whom the Administrator finds qualified under this part.

(b) A temporary remote pilot certificate with a SUAS rating expires:

(1) On the expiration date shown on the certificate;

(2) Upon receipt of the permanent certificate; or

(3) Upon receipt of a notice that the certificate sought is denied or revoked.

§ 107.65 Aeronautical knowledge recency.

A person may not exercise the privileges of a RPIC with SUAS rating unless that person has accomplished one of the following in a manner acceptable to the Administrator within the previous 24 calendar months:

(a) Passed an initial aeronautical knowledge test covering the areas of knowledge specified in § 107.73;

(b) Completed recurrent training covering the areas of knowledge specified in § 107.73; or

(c) If a person holds a pilot certificate (other than a student pilot certificate) issued under part 61 of this chapter and meets the flight review requirements specified in § 61.56, completed training covering the areas of knowledge specified in § 107.74.

(d) A person who has passed a recurrent aeronautical knowledge test in a manner acceptable to the Administrator or who has satisfied the training requirement of paragraph (c) of this section prior to April 6, 2021, within the previous 24 calendar months is considered to be in compliance with the requirement of paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, as applicable.

§ 107.67 Knowledge tests: General procedures and passing grades.

(a) Knowledge tests prescribed by or under this part are given by persons and in the manner designated by the Administrator.

(b) An applicant for a knowledge test must have proper identification at the time of application that contains the applicant’s:

(1) Photograph;

(2) Signature;

(3) Date of birth, which shows the applicant meets or will meet the age requirements of this part for the certificate and rating sought before the expiration date of the airman knowledge test report; and

(4) Permanent mailing address. If the applicant’s permanent mailing address is a post office box number, then the applicant must also provide a current residential address.

(c) The minimum passing grade for the knowledge test will be specified by the Administrator.

§ 107.69 Knowledge tests: Cheating or other unauthorized conduct.

(a) An applicant for a knowledge test may not:

(1) Copy or intentionally remove any knowledge test;

(2) Give to another applicant or receive from another applicant any part or copy of a knowledge test;

(3) Give or receive assistance on a knowledge test during the period that test is being given;

(4) Take any part of a knowledge test on behalf of another person;

(5) Be represented by, or represent, another person for a knowledge test;

(6) Use any material or aid during the period that the test is being given, unless specifically authorized to do so by the Administrator; and

(7) Intentionally cause, assist, or participate in any act prohibited by this paragraph.

(b) An applicant who the Administrator finds has committed an act prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section is prohibited, for 1 year after the date of committing that act, from:

(1) Applying for any certificate, rating, or authorization issued under this chapter; and

(2) Applying for and taking any test under this chapter.

(c) Any certificate or rating held by an applicant may be suspended or revoked if the Administrator finds that person has committed an act prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section.

§ 107.71 Retesting after failure.

An applicant for a knowledge test who fails that test may not reapply for the test for 14 calendar days after failing the test.

§ 107.73 Knowledge and training.

An initial aeronautical knowledge test and recurrent training covers the following areas of knowledge:

(a) Applicable regulations relating to SUAS rating privileges, limitations, and flight operation;

(b) Airspace classification, operating requirements, and flight restrictions affecting SUA operation;

(c) Aviation weather sources and effects of weather on SUA performance;

(d) SUA loading;

(e) Emergency procedures;

(f) CRM;

(g) Radio communication procedures;

(h) Determining the performance of the SUA;

(i) Physiological effects of drugs and alcohol;

(j) ADM and judgment;

(k) Airport operations;

(l) Maintenance and preflight inspection procedures; and

(m) Operation at night.

§ 107.74 SUAS training.

Training for pilots who hold a pilot certificate (other than a student pilot certificate) issued under part 61 of this chapter and meet the flight review requirements specified in § 61.56 covers the following areas of knowledge:

(a) Applicable regulations relating to SUAS rating privileges, limitations, and flight operation;

(b) Effects of weather on SUA performance;

(c) SUA loading;

(d) Emergency procedures;

(e) CRM;

(f) Determining the performance of the SUA;

(g) Maintenance and preflight inspection procedures; and

(h) Operation at night.

§ 107.77 Change of name or address.

(a) Change of name. An application to change the name on a certificate issued under this subpart must be accompanied by the applicant’s:

(1) Remote pilot certificate with SUAS rating; and

(2) A copy of the marriage license, court order, or other document verifying the name change.

(b) The documents in paragraph (a) of this section will be returned to the applicant after inspection.

(c) Change of address. The holder of a remote pilot certificate with SUAS rating issued under this subpart who has made a change in permanent mailing address may not, after 30 days from that date, exercise the privileges of the certificate unless the holder has notified the FAA of the change in address using one of the following methods:

(1) By letter to the FAA Airman Certification Branch, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125 providing the new permanent mailing address, or if the permanent mailing address includes a post office box number, then the holder’s current residential address; or

(2) By using the FAA Web site portal at www.faa.gov providing the new permanent mailing address, or if the permanent mailing address includes a post office box number, then the holder’s current residential address.

§ 107.79 Voluntary surrender of certificate.

(a) The holder of a certificate issued under this subpart may voluntarily surrender it for cancellation.

(b) Any request made under paragraph (a) of this section must include the following signed statement or its equivalent: “I voluntarily surrender my remote pilot certificate with a SUAS rating for cancellation. This request is made for my own reasons, with full knowledge that my certificate will not be reissued to me unless I again complete the requirements specified in §§ 107.61 and 107.63.”

Subpart D – Operations Over Human Beings

§ 107.100 Applicability.

This subpart prescribes the eligibility and operating requirements for civil SUA to operate over human beings or over moving vehicles in the US, in addition to those operations permitted by § 107.39(a) and (b).

§ 107.105 Limitations on operations over human beings.

Except as provided in §§ 107.39(a) and (b) and 107.145, a RPIC may conduct operations over human beings only in accordance with the following, as applicable: § 107.110 for Category 1 operations; §§ 107.115 and 107.120 for Category 2 operations; §§ 107.125 and 107.130 for Category 3 operations; or § 107.140 for Category 4 operations.

§ 107.110 Category 1 operations.

To conduct Category 1 operations –

(a) A RPIC must use a SUA that –

(1) Weighs 0.55 pounds or less on takeoff and throughout the duration of each operation under Category 1, including everything that is on board or otherwise attached to the aircraft; and

(2) Does not contain any exposed rotating parts that would lacerate human skin upon impact with a human being.

(b) No RPIC may operate a SUA in sustained flight over open-air assemblies of human beings unless the operation meets the requirements of either § 89.110 or § 89.115(a) of this chapter.

§ 107.115 Category 2 operations: Operating requirements.

To conduct Category 2 operations –

(a) A RPIC must use a SUA that –

(1) Is eligible for Category 2 operations pursuant to § 107.120(a);

(2) Is listed on an FAA-accepted DOC as eligible for Category 2 operations in accordance with § 107.160; and

(3) Is labeled as eligible to conduct Category 2 operations in accordance with § 107.120(b)(1).

(b) No RPIC may operate a SUA in sustained flight over open-air assemblies of human beings unless the operation meets the requirements of either § 89.110 or § 89.115(a) of this chapter.

§ 107.120 Category 2 operations: Eligibility of SUA and other applicant requirements.

(a) To be eligible for use in Category 2 operations, the SUA must be designed, produced, or modified such that it –

(1) Will not cause injury to a human being that is equivalent to or greater than the severity of injury caused by a transfer of 11 foot-pounds of kinetic energy upon impact from a rigid object;

(2) Does not contain any exposed rotating parts that would lacerate human skin upon impact with a human being; and

(3) Does not contain any safety defects.

(b) The applicant for a DOC for a SUA that is eligible for use in Category 2 operations in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, must meet all of the following requirements for the applicant’s UA to be used in Category 2 operations:

(1) Display a label on the SUA indicating eligibility to conduct Category 2 operations. The label must be in English and be legible, prominent, and permanently affixed to the SUA.

(2) Have remote pilot operating instructions that apply to the operation of the SUAS. The applicant for a DOC must make available these instructions upon sale or transfer of the aircraft or use of the aircraft by someone other than the applicant who submitted a DOC pursuant to § 107.160. Such instructions must address, at a minimum –

(i) A system description that includes the required SUAS components, any system limitations, and the declared category or categories of operation;

(ii) Modifications that will not change the ability of the SUAS to meet the requirements for the category or categories of operation the SUAS is eligible to conduct; and

(iii) Instructions for how to verify and change the mode or configuration of the SUAS, if they are variable.

(3) Maintain a product support and notification process. The applicant for a DOC must maintain product support and notification procedures to notify the public and the FAA of-

(i) Any defect or condition that causes the SUA to no longer meet the requirements of this subpart; and

(ii) Any identified safety defect that causes the SUA to exceed a low probability of casualty.

§ 107.125 Category 3 operations: Operating requirements.

To conduct Category 3 operations, a RPIC –

(a) Must use a SUA that –

(1) Is eligible for Category 3 operations pursuant to § 107.130(a);

(2) Is listed on an FAA-accepted DOC as eligible for Category 3 operations in accordance with § 107.160; and

(3) Is labeled as eligible for Category 3 operations in accordance with § 107.130(b)(1);

(b) Must not operate the SUA over open-air assemblies of human beings; and

(c) May only operate the SUA above any human being if operation meets one of the following conditions:

(1) The operation is within or over a closed- or restricted-access site and all human beings located within the closed- or restricted-access site must be on notice that a SUA may fly over them; or

(2) The SUA does not maintain sustained flight over any human being unless that human being is –

(i) Directly participating in the operation of the SUA; or

(ii) Located under a covered structure or inside a stationary vehicle that can provide reasonable protection from a falling SUA.

§ 107.130 Category 3 operations: Eligibility of SUA and other applicant requirements.

(a) To be eligible for use in Category 3 operations, the SUA must be designed, produced, or modified such that it –

(1) Will not cause injury to a human being that is equivalent to or greater than the severity of the injury caused by a transfer of 25 foot-pounds of kinetic energy upon impact from a rigid object;

(2) Does not contain any exposed rotating parts that would lacerate human skin upon impact with a human being; and

(3) Does not contain any safety defects.

(b) The applicant for a DOC for a SUA that is eligible for use in Category 3 operations in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, must meet all of the following requirements for the applicant’s SUA to be used in Category 3 operations:

(1) Display a label on the SUA indicating eligibility to conduct Category 3 operations. The label must be in English and be legible, prominent, and permanently affixed to the SUA.

(2) Have remote pilot operating instructions that apply to the operation of the SUAS. The applicant for a DOC must make available these instructions upon sale or transfer of the aircraft or use of the aircraft by someone other than the applicant who submitted a declaration of compliance pursuant to § 107.160. Such instructions must address, at a minimum –

(i) A system description that includes the required SUAS components, any system limitations, and the declared category or categories of operation;

(ii) Modifications that will not change the ability of the SUAS to meet the requirements for the category or categories of operation the SUAS is eligible to conduct; and

(iii) Instructions for how to verify and change the mode or configuration of the SUAS, if they are variable.

(3) Maintain a product support and notification process. The applicant for a DOC must maintain product support and notification procedures to notify the public and the FAA of-

(i) Any defect or condition that causes the SUA to no longer meet the requirements of this subpart; and

(ii) Any identified safety defect that causes the SUA to exceed a low probability of fatality.

§ 107.135 Labeling by RPIC for Category 2 and 3 operations.

If a Category 2 or Category 3 label affixed to a SUA is damaged, destroyed, or missing, a RPIC must label the aircraft in English such that the label is legible, prominent, and will remain on the SUA for the duration of the operation before conducting operations over human beings. The label must correctly identify the category or categories of operation over human beings that the SUA is qualified to conduct in accordance with this subpart.

§ 107.140 Category 4 operations.

(a) RPIC requirements. To conduct Category 4 operations –

(1) A RPIC –

(i) Must use a SUA that is eligible for Category 4 operations pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section; and

(ii) Must operate the SUA in accordance with all operating limitations that apply to the SUA, as specified by the Administrator.

(2) No RPIC may operate a SUA in sustained flight over open-air assemblies of human beings unless the operation meets the requirements of either § 89.110 or § 89.115(a) of this chapter.

(b) SUA requirements for Category 4. To be eligible to operate over human beings under this section, the SUA must –

(1) Have an airworthiness certificate issued under part 21 of this chapter.

(2) Be operated in accordance with the operating limitations specified in the approved Flight Manual or as otherwise specified by the Administrator. The operating limitations must not prohibit operations over human beings.

(3) Have maintenance, preventive maintenance, alterations, or inspections performed in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section.

(c) Maintenance requirements for Category 4. The owner must (unless the owner enters into an agreement with an operator to meet the requirements of this paragraph (c), then the operator must) meet the requirements of this paragraph (c):

(1) Ensure the person performing any maintenance, preventive maintenance, alterations, or inspections:

(i) Uses the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the manufacturer’s current maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness that are acceptable to the Administrator, or other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator;

(ii) Has the knowledge, skill, and appropriate equipment to perform the work;

(iii) Performs the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations on the SUA in a manner using the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the manufacturer’s current maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer, or other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator;

(iv) Inspects the SUA in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions or other instructions acceptable to the Administrator; and

(v) Performs the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations using parts of such a quality that the condition of the aircraft will be at least equal to its original or properly altered condition.

(2) Maintain all records of maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations performed on the aircraft and ensure the records are documented in a manner acceptable to the Administrator. The records must contain the description of the work performed, the date the work was completed, and the name of the person who performed the work.

(3) Maintain all records containing –

(i) The status of life-limited parts that are installed on, or part of, the SUA;

(ii) The inspection status of the aircraft; and

(iii) The status of applicable airworthiness directives including the method of compliance, the airworthiness directive number, and revision date. If the airworthiness directive involves recurring action, the record must contain the time and date of the next required action.

(4) Retain the records required under paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section, as follows:

(i) The records documenting maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations performed must be retained for 1 year from when the work is completed or until the maintenance is repeated or superseded by other work.

(ii) The records documenting the status of life-limited parts, compliance with airworthiness directives, and inspection status of the SUA must be retained and transferred with the aircraft upon change in ownership.

(5) Ensure all records under paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section are available for inspection upon request from the Administrator or any authorized representative of the NTSB.

(d) Compliance with parts 43 and 91 of this chapter. Compliance with part 43 and part 91, subpart E, of this chapter fulfills the requirements in paragraphs (b)(3) and (c) of this section.

§ 107.145 Operations over moving vehicles.

No person may operate a SUA over a human being located inside a moving vehicle unless the following conditions are met:

(a) The operation occurs in accordance with § 107.110 for Category 1 operations; § 107.115 for Category 2 operations; § 107.125 for Category 3 operations; or § 107.140 for Category 4 operations.

(b) For an operation under Category 1, Category 2, or Category 3, the SUA, throughout the operation –

(1) Must remain within or over a closed- or restricted-access site, and all human beings located inside a moving vehicle within the closed- or restricted-access site must be on notice that a SUA may fly over them; or

(2) Must not maintain sustained flight over moving vehicles.

(c) For a Category 4 operation, the SUA must –

(1) Have an airworthiness certificate issued under part 21 of this chapter.

(2) Be operated in accordance with the operating limitations specified in the approved Flight Manual or as otherwise specified by the Administrator. The operating limitations must not prohibit operations over human beings located inside moving vehicles.

§ 107.150 Variable mode and variable configuration of SUAS.

A SUAS may be eligible for one or more categories of operation over human beings under this subpart, as long as a RPIC cannot inadvertently switch between modes or configurations.

§ 107.155 Means of compliance.

(a) Establishment of compliance. To meet the requirements of § 107.120(a) for operations in Category 2, or the requirements of § 107.130(a) for operations in Category 3, the means of compliance must consist of test, analysis, or inspection.

(b) Required information. An applicant requesting FAA acceptance of a MOC must submit the following information to the FAA in a manner specified by the Administrator:

(1) Procedures. Detailed description of the MOC, including applicable test, analysis, or inspection procedures to demonstrate how the SUA meets the requirements of § 107.120(a) for operations in Category 2 or the requirements of § 107.130(a) for operations in Category 3. The description should include conditions, environments, and methods, as applicable.

(2) Compliance explanation. Explanation of how application of the MOC fulfills the requirements of § 107.120(a) for operations in Category 2 or the requirements of § 107.130(a) for operations in Category 3.

(c) FAA acceptance. If the FAA determines the applicant has demonstrated compliance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, it will notify the applicant that it has accepted the MOC.

(d) Rescission.

(1) A MOC is subject to ongoing review by the Administrator. The Administrator may rescind its acceptance of a MOC if the Administrator determines that a MOC does not meet any or all of the requirements of this subpart.

(2) The Administrator will publish a notice of rescission in the FEDERAL REGISTER.

(e) Inapplicability of part 13, subpart D, of this chapter. Part 13, subpart D, of this chapter does not apply to the procedures of paragraph (a) of this section.

§ 107.160 Declaration of compliance.

(a) Required information. In order for an applicant to declare a SUA is compliant with the requirements of this subpart for Category 2 or Category 3 operations, an applicant must submit a DOC for acceptance by the FAA, in a manner specified by the Administrator, that includes the following information:

(1) Applicant’s name;

(2) Applicant’s physical address;

(3) Applicant’s email address;

(4) The SUA make and model name, and series, if applicable;

(5) The SUA serial number or range of serial numbers that are the subject of the DOC;

(6) Whether the DOC is an initial declaration or an amended declaration;

(7) If the DOC is an amended declaration, the reason for the re-submittal;

(8) The accepted MOC the applicant used to fulfill requirements of § 107.120(a) or § 107.130(a) or both;

(9) A declaration that the applicant –

(i) Has demonstrated that the SUA, or specific configurations of that aircraft, satisfies § 107.120(a) or § 107.130(a) or both, through the accepted MOC identified in paragraph (a)(8) of this section;

(ii) Has verified that the UA does not contain any safety defects;

(iii) Has satisfied § 107.120(b)(3) or § 107.130(b)(3), or both; and

(iv) Will, upon request, allow the Administrator to inspect its facilities, technical data, and any manufactured SUA and witness any tests necessary to determine compliance with this subpart; and

(10) Other information as required by the Administrator.

(b) FAA acceptance. If the FAA determines the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the requirements of this subpart, it will notify the applicant that it has accepted the DOC.

(c) Notification of a safety issue. Prior to initiating rescission proceedings pursuant to paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section, the FAA will notify the applicant if a safety issue has been identified for the DOC.

(d) Rescission.

(1) No person may operate a SUA identified on a DOC that the FAA has rescinded pursuant to this subpart while that DOC is rescinded.

(2) The FAA may rescind a DOC if any of the following conditions occur:

(i) A SUA for which a DOC was accepted no longer complies with § 107.120(a) or § 107.130(a);

(ii) The FAA finds a DOC is in violation of § 107.5(a); or

(iii) The Administrator determines an emergency exists related to safety in accordance with the authority in 49 U.S.C. 46105.

(3) If a safety issue identified under paragraph (c) of this section has not been resolved, the FAA may rescind the DOC as follows:

(i) The FAA will issue a notice proposing to rescind the DOC. The notice will set forth the Agency’s basis for the proposed rescission and provide the holder of the DOC with 30 calendar days from the date of issuance of the proposed notice to submit evidentiary information to refute the proposed notice.

(ii) The holder of the DOC must submit information demonstrating how the SUA meets the requirements of this subpart within 30 calendar days from the date of issuance of the proposed notice.

(iii) If the FAA does not receive the information required by paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section within 30 calendar days from the date of the issuance of the proposed notice, the FAA will issue a notice rescinding the DOC.

(4) If the Administrator determines that an emergency exists in accordance with paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this section, the FAA will exercise its authority under 49 U.S.C. 46105(c) to issue an order rescinding a DOC without initiating the process in paragraph (d)(3) of this section.

(e) Petition to reconsider the rescission of a DOC. A person subject to an order of rescission under paragraph (d)(3) of this section may petition the FAA to reconsider the rescission of a DOC by submitting a request to the FAA in a manner specified by the Administrator within 60 days of the date of issuance of the rescission.

(1) A petition to reconsider the rescission of a DOC must demonstrate at least one of the following:

(i) A material fact that was not present in the original response to the notification of the safety issue and an explanation for why it was not present in the original response;

(ii) The FAA made a material factual error in the decision to rescind the DOC; or

(iii) The FAA did not correctly interpret a law, regulation, or precedent.

(2) Upon consideration of the information submitted under paragraph (e)(1) of this section, the FAA will issue a notice either affirming the rescission or withdrawing the rescission.

(f) Inapplicability of part 13, subpart D, of this chapter. Part 13, subpart D, of this chapter does not apply to the procedures of paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section.

§ 107.165 Record retention.

(a) A person who submits a DOC under this subpart must retain and make available to the Administrator, upon request, the information described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section for the period of time described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

(1) All supporting information used to demonstrate the SUA meets the requirements of §§ 107.120(a), for operations in Category 2, and 107.130(a), for operations in Category 3.

(2) The following time periods apply:

(i) If the person who submits a DOC produces a SUA, that person must retain the information described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section for two years after the cessation of production of the SUAS for which the person declared compliance.

(ii) If the person who submits a DOC designs or modifies a SUA, that person must retain the information described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section for two years after the person submitted the DOC.

(b) A person who submits a MOC under this subpart must retain and make available to the Administrator, upon request, and for as long as the MOC remains accepted, the detailed description of the MOC and justification showing how the MOC meets the requirements of §§ 107.120(a), for operations in Category 2, and 107.130(a), for operations in Category 3.

Subpart E – Waivers

§ 107.200 Waiver policy and requirements.

(a) The Administrator may issue a certificate of waiver authorizing a deviation from any regulation specified in § 107.205 if the Administrator finds that a proposed SUAS operation can safely be conducted under the terms of that certificate of waiver.

(b) A request for a certificate of waiver must contain a complete description of the proposed operation and justification that establishes that the operation can safely be conducted under the terms of a certificate of waiver.

(c) The Administrator may prescribe additional limitations that the Administrator considers necessary.

(d) A person who receives a certificate of waiver issued under this section:

(1) May deviate from the regulations of this part to the extent specified in the certificate of waiver; and

(2) Must comply with any conditions or limitations that are specified in the certificate of waiver.

§ 107.205 List of regulations subject to waiver.

A certificate of waiver issued pursuant to § 107.200 may authorize a deviation from the following regulations of this part:

(a) Section 107.25 – Operation from a moving vehicle or aircraft. However, no waiver of this provision will be issued to allow the carriage of property of another by aircraft for compensation or hire.

(b) Section 107.29(a)(2) and (b) – Anti-collision light required for operations at night and during periods of civil twilight.

(c) Section 107.31 – Visual line of sight aircraft operation. However, no waiver of this provision will be issued to allow the carriage of property of another by aircraft for compensation or hire.

(d) Section 107.33 – Visual observer.

(e) Section 107.35 – Operation of multiple SUAS.

(f) Section 107.37(a) – Yielding the right of way.

(g) Section 107.39 – Operation over people.

(h) Section 107.41 – Operation in certain airspace.

(i) Section 107.51 – Operating limitations for SUA.

(j) Section 107.145 – Operations over moving vehicles.

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

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.

 

49 USC §40102. Definitions

(41) “public aircraft” means any of the following:

(A) Except with respect to an aircraft described in subparagraph (E), an aircraft used only for the United States Government, except as provided in section 40125(b).

(B) An aircraft owned by the Government and operated by any person for purposes related to crew training, equipment development, or demonstration, except as provided in section 40125(b).

(C) An aircraft owned and operated by the government of a State, the District of Columbia, or a territory or possession of the United States or a political subdivision of one of these governments, except as provided in section 40125(b).

(D) An aircraft exclusively leased for at least 90 continuous days by the government of a State, the District of Columbia, or a territory or possession of the United States or a political subdivision of one of these governments, except as provided in section 40125(b).

(E) An aircraft owned or operated by the armed forces or chartered to provide transportation or other commercial air service to the armed forces under the conditions specified by section 40125(c). In the preceding sentence, the term “other commercial air service” means an aircraft operation that (i) is within the United States territorial airspace; (ii) the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration determines is available for compensation or hire to the public, and (iii) must comply with all applicable civil aircraft rules under title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.

49 USC §40125. Qualifications for public aircraft status

(a) Definitions.—In this section, the following definitions apply:

(1) Commercial purposes.—The term “commercial purposes” means the transportation of persons or property for compensation or hire, but does not include the operation of an aircraft by the armed forces for reimbursement when that reimbursement is required by any Federal statute, regulation, or directive, in effect on November 1, 1999, or by one government on behalf of another government under a cost reimbursement agreement if the government on whose behalf the operation is conducted certifies to the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration that the operation is necessary to respond to a significant and imminent threat to life or property (including natural resources) and that no service by a private operator is reasonably available to meet the threat.

(2) Governmental function.—The term “governmental function” means an activity undertaken by a government, such as national defense, intelligence missions, firefighting, search and rescue, law enforcement (including transport of prisoners, detainees, and illegal aliens), aeronautical research, or biological or geological resource management.

(3) Qualified non-crewmember.—The term “qualified non-crewmember” means an individual, other than a member of the crew, aboard an aircraft—

(A) operated by the armed forces or an intelligence agency of the United States Government; or

(B) whose presence is required to perform, or is associated with the performance of, a governmental function.

(4) Armed forces.—The term “armed forces” has the meaning given such term by section 101 of title 10.

(b) Aircraft Owned by Governments.—An aircraft described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of section 40102(a)(41) does not qualify as a public aircraft under such section when the aircraft is used for commercial purposes or to carry an individual other than a crewmember or a qualified non-crewmember.

(c) Aircraft Owned or Operated by the Armed Forces.—

(1) In general.—Subject to paragraph (2), an aircraft described in section 40102(a)(41)(E) qualifies as a public aircraft if—

(A) the aircraft is operated in accordance with title 10;

(B) the aircraft is operated in the performance of a governmental function under title 14, 31, 32, or 50 and the aircraft is not used for commercial purposes; or

(C) the aircraft is chartered to provide transportation or other commercial air service to the armed forces and the Secretary of Defense (or the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating) designates the operation of the aircraft as being required in the national interest.

(2) Limitation.—An aircraft that meets the criteria set forth in paragraph (1) and that is owned or operated by the National Guard of a State, the District of Columbia, or any territory or possession of the United States, qualifies as a public aircraft only to the extent that it is operated under the direct control of the Department of Defense.

 

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.

 

 

2017 – On April 6, 2017, the FAA used its existing authority under 14 CFR § 99.7 – “Special Security Instructions” – to address national security concerns about unauthorized drone operations over 133 military facilities.

This was the first time the agency instituted airspace restrictions that specifically apply only to unmanned aircraft, popularly known as “drones.”

The authority under § 99.7 is limited to requests based on national security interests from the DOD and US federal security and intelligence agencies.

US military facilities are vital to the nation’s security.

The FAA and the DOD have agreed to restrict drone flights up to 400 feet within the lateral boundaries of these 133 facilities.

The restrictions became effective April 14, 2017.

There are only a few exceptions that permit drone flights within these restrictions, and they must be coordinated with the individual facility and/or the FAA.

Operators who violate the airspace restrictions may be subject to enforcement action, including potential civil penalties and criminal charges.

 

2017 – On September 28, 2017, at the request of US national security and law enforcement agencies, the FAA used its existing authority under 14 CFR § 99.7 – “Special Security Instructions” – to address concerns about unauthorized drone operations over 10 DOI sites, including the Statue of Liberty and Mount Rushmore.

The FAA and DOI agreed to restrict drone flights up to 400 feet within the lateral boundaries of these sites:

  • Statue of Liberty National Monument, New York, NY
  • Boston National Historical Park (U.S.S. Constitution), Boston, MA
  • Independence National Historical Park, Philadelphia, PA
  • Folsom Dam; Folsom, CA
  • Glen Canyon Dam; Lake Powell, AZ
  • Grand Coulee Dam; Grand Coulee, WA
  • Hoover Dam; Boulder City, NV
  • Jefferson National Expansion Memorial; St. Louis, MO
  • Mount Rushmore National Memorial; Keystone, SD
  • Shasta Dam; Shasta Lake, CA

The restrictions became effective October 5, 2017.

There are only a few exceptions that permit drone flights within these restrictions, and they must be coordinated with the individual facility and/or the FAA.

Operators who violate the airspace restrictions may be subject to enforcement action, including potential civil penalties and criminal charges.

This was the first time the agency has placed airspace restrictions for unmanned aircraft, or “drones,” over DOI landmarks.

The FAA had placed similar airspace restrictions over military bases that currently remain in place.

 

2018 – On October 26, 2018, at the request of the DOD and the USCG, the FAA began using its existing authority under 14 CFR § 99.7 – “Special Security Instructions” – to address concerns about potentially malicious drone operations over certain, high-priority maritime operations.

The FAA, in cooperation with DOD and USCG, is restricting drone flights near U.S. Navy (USN) and USCG vessels operating in the vicinity of Naval Base Kitsap in Washington state and Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay in Georgia.

Drone operations are required to maintain a distance of at least 3,000 feet laterally and 1,000 feet vertically from these vessels.

These special security instructions are provided in an FAA NOTAM.

The full text of this NOTAM and additional information on these special security instructions include a visual depiction and geospatial definition of the relevant airspace.

The FAA also warns drone operators in this NOTAM that these USN and USCG vessels are authorized by law to take protective action against drones perceived to be safety or security threats such as those violating the cited FAA special security instructions.

This action could result in interference, disruption, seizure, damage or destruction of these drones.

Further, operators who do not comply with the FAA special security instructions also may be subject to enforcement action, including potential civil penalties and criminal charges.

Any operator with an overriding reason of public interest or necessity (e.g., conducting a search and rescue mission) to operate their drone in close proximity to the cited USN and USCG vessels must first coordinate with the USN or USCG point of contact identified in the ArcGis website.

In a separate Special Notice Advisory NOTAM, also effective October 26, 2018, the FAA strongly advises drone operators to remain clear of DOD and DOE facilities and mobile assets, as well as USCG vessels.

This Special Notice applies nationwide and alerts operators who ignore this caution and conduct drone flights perceived to be a safety or security threat to these facilities and mobile assets could face a reaction by security forces that results in the interference, disruption, seizure, damage or destruction of their aircraft.

 

2019 – On February 15, 2019, at the request of its federal security partners, the FAA used its existing authority under 14 CFR § 99.7 – “Special Security Instructions” – to address concerns about drone operations over national security sensitive facilities by establishing temporary UAS specific flight restrictions.

Information on the FAA NOTAM, which defines these restrictions, and all of the currently covered locations, can be found at the UAS Data Display System, which provides an interactive map, downloadable geospatial data, and other important details.

A link to these restrictions is also included in the FAA’s B4UFLY mobile app.

Additional, broader information regarding flying drones in the NAS, including frequently asked questions, is available on the FAA’s UAS website.

In cooperation with DOJ and DOD, the FAA established additional restrictions on drone flights up to 400 feet within the lateral boundaries of the following Federal facilities:

  • Federal Correctional Institution Allenwood Medium in Allenwood, PA
  • Federal Correctional Institution Beaumont Medium in Beaumont, TX
  • Federal Correctional Institution Butner Medium I in Butner, NC
  • Federal Correctional Institution Butner Medium II in Butner, NC
  • Federal Correctional Institution Coleman Medium near Sumterville, FL
  • Federal Correctional Institution Florence in Florence, CO
  • Federal Correctional Institution Forrest City Medium in Forrest City, AR
  • Federal Correctional Institution Hazelton near Bruceton Mills, WV
  • Federal Correctional Institution Lompoc in Lompoc, CA
  • Federal Correctional Institution Oakdale I in Oakdale, LA
  • Federal Correctional Institution Oakdale II in Oakdale, LA
  • Federal Correctional Institution Petersburg near Hopewell, VA
  • Federal Correctional Institution Pollock in Pollock, LA
  • Federal Correctional Institution Terre Haute in Terre Haute, IN
  • Federal Correctional Institution Tucson in Tucson, AZ
  • Federal Correctional Institution Victorville Medium I in Victorville, CA
  • Federal Correctional Institution Victorville Medium II in Victorville, CA
  • Federal Correctional Institution Yazoo City Medium in Yazoo City, MS
  • Federal Detention Center Honolulu in Honolulu, HI
  • Federal Detention Center Houston in Houston, TX
  • Federal Detention Center Miami in Miami, FL
  • Federal Detention Center Philadelphia in Philadelphia, PA
  • Federal Detention Center SeaTac near Seattle, WA
  • Federal Medical Center Carswell near Fort Worth, TX
  • Federal Medical Center Fort Worth in Fort Worth, TX
  • Federal Medical Center Rochester in Rochester, MN
  • Metropolitan Correctional Center Chicago in Chicago, IL
  • Metropolitan Correctional Center New York in New York City, NY
  • Metropolitan Correctional Center San Diego in San Diego, CA
  • Medical Center for Federal Prisoners Springfield in Springfield, MO
  • Metropolitan Detention Center Brooklyn in Brooklyn, NY
  • Metropolitan Detention Center Guaynabo in Guaynabo, PR
  • Metropolitan Detention Center Los Angeles in Los Angeles, CA
  • Fort Detrick in Frederick, MD
  • Fort Gordon near Augusta, GA
  • Fort Lee near Richmond, VA
  • Holston Army Ammunition Plant near Kingsport, TN
  • McAlester Army Ammunition Plant in McAlester, OK
  • Radford Army Ammunition Plant in Radford, VA
  • Joint Base McGuire near Trenton, NJ
  • Pearl Harbor Naval Defense Sea Area in Honolulu, HI

These changes have been highlighted by FAA NOTAM FDC [9/2586].

Operators who violate the flight restrictions may be subject to enforcement action, including potential civil penalties and criminal charges.

 

2019 – On October 29, 2019, the FAA announced UAS airspace restrictions over additional national security sensitive locations, effective November 7.

In cooperation with its federal partners, the FAA restricted UAS operations in the airspace over 60 additional Department of Defense and Department of Justice facilities to address concerns about malicious drone activity.

An FAA NOTAM, FDC 9/7752, defines these special security instructions.

The FAA has published a new NOTAM, FDC 9/1278, which alerts UAS operators and others in the aviation community to this change and points to FDC 9/7752.

UAS operators are strongly advised to review these NOTAMs, as well as important supporting information provided by the FAA’s UAS Data Delivery System (UDDS) website.

This website contains the text of FDC 9/7752 (click on “UAS NOTAM FDC 9/7752” on scroll bar along the top of the page).

Further down the page is an interactive map (“Map of FAA UAS Data”) displaying restricted airspace throughout the US.

Zooming in will enable viewers to click on each of the 60 new DOD and DOJ locations and see the specific restrictions.

Each of the 60 locations are red.

The restrictions are also included in the FAA’s B4UFLY mobile app.

UAS operators who violate these flight restrictions may be subject to enforcement action, including potential civil penalties and criminal charges.

The FAA considers requests by eligible federal security agencies for UAS-specific flight restrictions using its authority under 14 CFR § 99.7.

The agency will announce any future changes, including additional locations, as appropriate. 

The 60 locations:

  • Federal Correctional Institution Aliceville in Aliceville, Alabama
  • Federal Correctional Institution Ashland in Ashland, Kentucky
  • Federal Correctional Institution Bastrop in Bastrop, Texas
  • Federal Correctional Institution Beckley in Beaver, West Virginia
  • Federal Correctional Institution Bennetsville in Bennetsville, South Carolina
  • Federal Correctional Institution Berlin in Berlin, New Hampshire
  • Federal Correctional Institution Big Spring in Big Spring, Texas
  • Federal Correctional Institution Cumberland in Cumberland, Maryland
  • Federal Correctional Institution Danbury in Danbury, Connecticut
  • Federal Correctional Institution Dublin in Dublin, California
  • Federal Correctional Institution Edgefield in Edgefield, South Carolina
  • Federal Correctional Institution El Reno in El Reno, Oklahoma
  • Federal Correctional Institution Elkton in Lisbon, Ohio
  • Federal Correctional Institution Englewood in Littleton, Colorado
  • Federal Correctional Institution Estill in Estill, South Carolina
  • Federal Correctional Institution Fairton in Fairton, New Jersey
  • Federal Correctional Institution Gilmer in Glenville, West Virginia
  • Federal Correctional Institution Greenville in Greenville, Illinois
  • Federal Correctional Institution Herlong in Herlong, California
  • Federal Correctional Institution Jesup in Jesup, Georgia
  • Federal Correctional Institution La Tuna in Anthony, Texas
  • Federal Correctional Institution Loretto in Loretto, Pennsylvania
  • Federal Correctional Institution Lompoc in Lompoc, California
  • Federal Correctional Institution Manchester in Manchester, Kentucky
  • Federal Correctional Institution Marianna in Marianna, Florida
  • Federal Correctional Institution McDowell in Welch, West Virginia
  • Federal Correctional Institution McKean in Lewis Run, Pennsylvania
  • Federal Correctional Institution Memphis in Memphis, Tennessee
  • Federal Correctional Institution Mendota in Mendota, California
  • Federal Correctional Institution Miami in Miami, Florida
  • Federal Correctional Institution Milan in Milan, Michigan
  • Federal Correctional Institution Morgantown in Morgantown, West Virginia
  • Federal Correctional Institution Otisville in Otisville, New York
  • Federal Correctional Institution Oxford in Oxford, Wisconsin
  • Federal Correctional Institution Pekin in Pekin, Illinois
  • Federal Correctional Institution Phoenix in Phoenix, Arizona
  • Federal Correctional Institution Ray Brook in Ray Brook, New York
  • Federal Correctional Institution Safford in Safford, Arizona
  • Federal Correctional Institution Sandstone in Sandstone, Minnesota
  • Federal Correctional Institution Schuylkill in Minersville, Pennsylvania
  • Federal Correctional Institution Seagoville in Seagoville, Texas
  • Federal Correctional Institution Sheridan in Sheridan, Oregon
  • Federal Correctional Institution Talladega in Talladega, Alabama
  • Federal Correctional Institution Tallahassee in Tallahassee, Florida
  • Federal Correctional Institution Terminal Island in San Pedro, California
  • Federal Correctional Institution Texarkana in Texarkana, Texas
  • Federal Correctional Institution Three Rivers in Three Rivers, Texas
  • Federal Correctional Institution Waseca in Waseca, Minnesota
  • Federal Correctional Institution Williamsburg in Salters, South Carolina
  • Federal Medical Center Devens in Devens, Massachusetts
  • Federal Medical Center Butner in Butner, North Carolina
  • Federal Medical Center Lexington in Lexington, Kentucky
  • Federal Transfer Center Oklahoma City in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
  • United States Penitentiary Atlanta in Atlanta, Georgia
  • United States Penitentiary Leavenworth in Leavenworth, Kansas
  • Martindale AHP in San Antonio, Texas
  • Scranton Army Ammunition Plant in Scranton, Pennsylvania
  • Tobyhanna Army Complex in Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania
  • Military Ocean Terminal Concord in Concord, California
  • Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point in Sunny Point, North Carolina

 

 

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.

The 2023 Fact Sheet:

  • summarizes well-established legal principles regarding federal authority for regulating the efficiency of the airspace, including the operation or flight of aircraft, which includes, as a matter of law, UAS
  • reviews the federal responsibility for ensuring the safety of flight, as well as the safety of people and property on the ground as a result of the operation of aircraft
  • sets forth the basic preemption framework applicable to UAS:
    • States and local governments may not regulate in the fields of aviation safety or airspace efficiency but generally may regulate outside those fields
    • A state or local law will be preempted if it conflicts with FAA regulations
    • State or local laws affecting commercial UAS operators are more likely to be preempted

As substantial air safety issues are implicated when state or local governments attempt to regulate the operation of aircraft in the national airspace, but legitimate state and local interests in health and safety exist in other contexts, the updated Fact Sheet provides examples of laws addressing UAS that would be subject to federal preemption and others that would likely pass muster.

The updated Fact Sheet concludes with a discussion of Enforcement Matters and Contact Information for Questions.

The FAA Office of the Chief Counsel’s Aviation Litigation Division is available to answer questions about the principles set forth in this fact sheet and to discuss with you the intersection of Federal, state, and local regulation of aviation, generally, and UAS operations, specifically.

 

 

State Preemption

Much like federal preemption, there is also state preemption, or the use of state law to nullify a municipal ordinance or authority.
Where this occurs, there will be a Green Box around the clause to alert you to the fact, just like this.

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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)

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.

Over the course of the U.S. DOT – VOLPE Center and FAA’s 7-part thought leadership series, more than 20 federal officials, experts from the private sector, academia, and non-profit organizations considered AAM in the context of safety, global competitiveness, innovation, the environment, equity, international collaboration, and workforce requirements.

Throughout the series, experts discussed how to move quickly to embrace new technologies while ensuring that the aviation system of the future is safer, more efficient, equitable, and sustainable.

 

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

Each UML is characterized in terms of operational density, complexity, and reliance on automation.

Density refers to air traffic density and is defined as the number of UAM aircraft simultaneously operating at any given time within a single metropolitan area.

Complexity considers a combination of factors including maximum potential capacity (i.e., throughput) at major UAM aerodromes, weather tolerance, the distribution of UAM aerodromes, integration of aircraft types, and operational integration.

Automation reliance indicates the level of responsibility held by automated systems in the UAM system, although it is unknown if these are at an equivalent level across the entire UAM system.

 

 

2020FAA 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 RemainRequested by the Ranking Members of the US House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and its Subcommittee on Aviation

 

2023FAA 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. 

New rules are necessary because many of the proposed aircraft take off and land like a helicopter but fly enroute like an airplane.

The powered-lift proposed rule is designed to provide certainty to pilots and the industry on what the requirements and expectations will be to operate these aircraft once it is finalized.

Under the proposed rule:

  • A clear pathway is proposed for pilots to earn powered-lift ratings specific to each type of aircraft they fly.
  • Pilots who work for powered-lift aircraft manufacturers could serve as the initial cadre of flight instructors, who could then train instructors at flight schools, training centers and air carriers.
  • To safely accelerate pilot certification, alternate eligibility criteria would enable certain pilots to meet flight-time experience requirements faster. This would apply to pilots who already hold a commercial pilot certificate and are instrument rated.
  • Powered-lift aircraft would follow the same set of operating rules as traditional aircraft that are used in private and commercial flights and air tours.

The proposal would conform to ICAO requirements, enabling US pilots to operate in other countries.

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

 

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:

 

SEC. 745. ELECTRIC AIRCRAFT INFRASTRUCTURE PILOT PROGRAM.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may establish a pilot program under which airport sponsors may use funds made available under chapter 471 or section 48103 of title 49, United States Code, for use at up to 10 airports to carry out—
(1) activities associated with the acquisition, by purchase or lease, operation, and installation of equipment to support the operations of electric aircraft, including interoperable electric vehicle charging equipment; and
(2) the construction or modification of infrastructure to facilitate the delivery of power or services necessary for the use of electric aircraft, including—
(A) on airport utility upgrades; and
(B) associated design costs.
(b) ELIGIBILITY.—A public-use airport is eligible for participation in the pilot program under this section if the Secretary finds that funds made available under subsection (a) would support—
(1) electric aircraft operators at such airport, or using such airport; or
(2) electric aircraft operators planning to operate at such airport with an associated agreement in place.
(c) SUNSET.—The pilot program established under subsection (a) shall terminate on October 1, 2028.

 

Subtitle B—Advanced Air Mobility
SEC. 951. DEFINITIONS.
In this subtitle:
(1) ADVANCED AIR MOBILITY.—The terms ‘‘advanced air mobility’’ and ‘‘AAM’’ mean a transportation system that is comprised of urban air mobility and regional air mobility using
manned or unmanned aircraft.
(2) POWERED-LIFT AIRCRAFT.—The term ‘‘powered-lift aircraft’’ has the meaning given the term ‘‘powered-lift’’ in section 1.1 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.
(3) REGIONAL AIR MOBILITY.—The term ‘‘regional air mobility’’ means the movement of passengers or property by air between 2 points using an airworthy aircraft that—
(A) has advanced technologies, such as distributed propulsion, vertical takeoff and landing, powered lift, nontraditional power systems, or autonomous technologies;
(B) has a maximum takeoff weight of greater than 1,320 pounds; and
(C) is not urban air mobility.
(4) URBAN AIR MOBILITY.—The term ‘‘urban air mobility’’ means the movement of passengers or property by air between 2 points in different cities or 2 points within the same city using an airworthy aircraft that—
(A) has advanced technologies, such as distributed propulsion, vertical takeoff and landing, powered lift, nontraditional power systems, or autonomous technologies; and
(B) has a maximum takeoff weight of greater than 1,320 pounds.
(5) VERTIPORT.—The term ‘‘vertiport’’ means an area of land, water, or a structure used or intended to be used to support the landing, takeoff, taxiing, parking, and storage of powered-lift aircraft or other aircraft that vertiport design and performance standards established by the Administrator can accommodate.
 
SEC. 952. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON FAA LEADERSHIP IN ADVANCED AIR MOBILITY.
It is the sense of Congress that—
(1) the United States should take actions to become a global leader in advanced air mobility;
(2) as such a global leader, the FAA should—
(A) prioritize work on the type certification of powered lift aircraft;
(B) publish, in line with stated deadlines, rulemakings and policy necessary to enable commercial operations, such as the Special Federal Aviation Regulation of the FAA titled ‘‘Integration of Powered-Lift: Pilot Certification and Operations; Miscellaneous Amendments Related to Rotorcraft and Airplanes’’, issued on June 14, 2023 (2120-AL72);
(C) work with global partners to promote acceptance of advanced air mobility products; and
(D) leverage the existing aviation system to the greatest extent possible to support advanced air mobility operations; and
(3) the FAA should work with manufacturers, prospective operators of powered-lift aircraft, and other relevant stakeholders to enable the safe entry of such aircraft into the national airspace system.
 
SEC. 953. APPLICATION OF NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS FOR VERTIPORT PROJECTS.
In considering the environmental impacts of a proposed vertiport project on an airport for purposes of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.), the Administrator shall—
(1) apply any applicable categorical exclusions in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and subchapter A of chapter V of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations; and
(2) after consultation with the Council on Environmental Quality, take steps to establish additional categorical exclusions, as appropriate, for vertiports on an airport, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and subchapter A of chapter V of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations.
 
SEC. 954. ADVANCED AIR MOBILITY WORKING GROUP AMENDMENTS.
Section 2 of the Advanced Air Mobility Coordination and Leadership Act (49 U.S.C. 40101 note) is amended—
(1) in subsection (b) by striking ‘‘, particularly passenger carrying aircraft,’’;
(2) in subsection (d)(1) by striking subparagraph (D) and inserting the following:
‘‘(D) operators of airports, heliports, and vertiports, and fixed-base operators;’’;
(3) in subsection (e)—
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking ‘‘1 year’’ and inserting ‘‘18 months’’;
(B) in paragraph (3) by inserting ‘‘or that may impede such maturation’’ after ‘‘AAM industry’’;
(C) in paragraph (7) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end;
(D) in paragraph (8) by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and
(E) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(9) processes and programs that can be leveraged to improve the efficiency of Federal reviews required for infrastructure development, including for electrical capacity projects.’’;
(4) in subsection (f)—
(A) in paragraph (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end;
(B) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3);
(C) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new paragraph:
‘‘(2) recommendations for sharing expertise and data on critical items, including long-term electrification requirements and the needs of cities (from a macro-electrification standpoint)
to enable the deployment of AAM; and’’; and
(D) in paragraph (3), as redesignated by paragraph
(2) of this section, by striking ‘‘paragraph (1)’’ and inserting ‘‘paragraphs (1) and (2)’’.
(5) in subsection (g)—
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking ‘‘working group’’ and inserting ‘‘Secretary of Transportation’’;
(B) in paragraph (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end;
(C) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
(D) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
‘‘(2) summarizing any dissenting views and opinions of a participant of the working group described in subsection (c)(3); and’’;
(6) in subsection (h)—
(A) by striking ‘‘Not later than 30 days’’ and inserting the following:
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days’’; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(2) CONSIDERATIONS FOR TERMINATION OF WORKING GROUP.—In deciding whether to terminate the working group under this subsection, the Secretary, in consultation with the
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, shall consider other interagency coordination activities associated with AAM, or other new or novel users of the national airspace system, that could benefit from continued wider interagency coordination.’’; and
(7) in subsection (i)—
(A) in paragraph (1) by striking ‘‘transports people and property by air between two points in the United States using aircraft with advanced technologies, including electric aircraft or electric vertical take-off and landing aircraft,’’ and inserting ‘‘is comprised of urban air mobility and regional air mobility using manned or unmanned aircraft’’;
(B) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (7);
(C) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (9);
(D) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
‘‘(5) POWERED-LIFT AIRCRAFT.—The term ‘powered-lift aircraft’ has the meaning given the term ‘powered-lift’ in section 1.1 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.
‘‘(6) REGIONAL AIR MOBILITY.—The term ‘regional air mobility’ means the movement of passengers or property by air between 2 points using an airworthy aircraft that—
‘‘(A) has advanced technologies, such as distributed propulsion, vertical take-off and landing, powered-lift, nontraditional power systems, or autonomous technologies;
‘‘(B) has a maximum takeoff weight of greater than 1,320 pounds; and
‘‘(C) is not urban air mobility.’’;
(E) by inserting after paragraph (7), as so redesignated, the following:
‘‘(8) URBAN AIR MOBILITY.—The term ‘urban air mobility’ means the movement of passengers or property by air between 2 points in different cities or 2 points within the same city using an airworthy aircraft that—
‘‘(A) has advanced technologies, such as distributed propulsion, vertical takeoff and landing, powered lift, nontraditional power systems, or autonomous technologies; and
‘‘(B) has a maximum takeoff weight of greater than 1,320 pounds.’’; and
(F) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(10) VERTIPORT.—The term ‘vertiport’ means an area of land, water, or a structure, used or intended to be used to support the landing, take-off, taxiing, parking, and storage of powered lift or other aircraft that vertiport design and performance standards established by the Administrator can accommodate.’’.
 
SEC. 955. RULES FOR OPERATION OF POWERED-LIFT AIRCRAFT.
(a) SFAR RULEMAKING.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 7 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall publish a final rule for the Special Federal Aviation Regulation of the FAA titled ‘‘Integration of Powered-Lift: Pilot Certification and Operations; Miscellaneous Amendments Related to Rotorcraft and Airplanes’’, issued on June 14, 2023 (2120–AL72), establishing
procedures for certifying pilots of powered-lift aircraft and providing operational rules for powered-lift aircraft capable of transporting passengers and cargo.
(2) REQUIREMENTS.—With respect to any powered-lift aircraft type certificated by the Administrator, the regulations established under paragraph (1) shall—
(A) provide a practical pathway for pilot qualification and operations;
(B) establish performance-based requirements for energy reserves and other range- and endurance-related requirements that reflect the capabilities and intended operations of the aircraft;
(C) provide for a combination of pilot training requirements, including simulators, to ensure the safe operation of powered-lift aircraft; and
(D) to the maximum extent practicable, align powered lift pilot qualifications with section 2.1.1.4 of Annex 1 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation published by the International Civil Aviation Organization.
(3) CONSIDERATIONS.—In developing the regulations required under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall—
(A) consider whether to grant an individual with an existing commercial airplane (single- or multi-engine) or helicopter pilot certificate the authority to serve as pilot-in-command of a powered-lift aircraft in commercial operation following the completion of an FAA-approved pilot type rating for such type of aircraft;
(B) consult with the Secretary of Defense with regard to—
(i) the Agility Prime program of the United States Air Force;
(ii) powered-lift aircraft evaluated and deployed for military purposes, including the F–35B program; and
(iii) the commonalities and differences between powered-lift aircraft types and the handling qualities of such aircraft; and
(C) consider the adoption of the recommendations for powered-lift operations, as appropriate, contained in document 10103 of the International Civil Aviation Organization titled ‘‘Guidance on the Implementation of ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices for Tilt-rotors’’, published in 2019.
(b) INTERIM APPLICATION OF RULES AND PRIVILEGES IN LIEU OF RULEMAKING.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Beginning 16 months after the date of enactment of this Act, if a final rule has not been published pursuant to subsection (a)—
(A) the rules in effect on the date that is 16 months after the date of enactment of this Act that apply to the operation and the operator of rotorcraft or fixed-wing aircraft under subchapters F, G, H, and I of chapter 1 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, shall be—
(i) deemed to apply to—
(I) the operation of a powered-lift aircraft in the national airspace system; and
(II) the operator of such a powered-lift aircraft; and
(ii) applicable, as determined by the operator of an airworthy powered-lift aircraft in consultation with the Administrator, and consistent with sections 91.3 and 91.13 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations; and
(B) upon the completion of a type rating for a specific powered-lift aircraft, airmen that hold a pilot or instructor certification with airplane category ratings in any class or rotorcraft category ratings in the helicopter class shall be deemed to have privileges of a powered-lift rating for such specific powered-lift aircraft.
(2) TERMINATION OF INTERIM RULES AND PRIVILEGES.—This subsection shall cease to have effect 1 month after the effective date of a final rule issued pursuant to subsection (a).
(c) POWERED-LIFT AIRCRAFT AVIATION RULEMAKING COMMITTEE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 3 years after the date on which the Administrator issues the first certificate to commercially operate a powered-lift aircraft, the Administrator shall establish an aviation rulemaking committee (in this section referred to as the ‘‘Committee’’) to provide the Administrator with specific findings and recommendations for, at a minimum, the creation of a standard pathway for the—
(A) performance-based certification of powered-lift aircraft;
(B) certification of airmen capable of serving as pilot-in-command of a powered-lift aircraft; and
(C) operation of powered-lift aircraft in commercial service and air transportation.
(2) CONSIDERATIONS.—In providing findings and recommendations under paragraph (1), the Committee shall consider the following:
(A) Outcome-driven safety objectives to spur innovation and technology adoption and promote the development of performance-based regulations.
(B) Lessons and insights learned from previously published special conditions and other Federal Register notices of airworthiness criteria for powered-lift aircraft.
(C) To the maximum extent practicable, aligning powered-lift pilot qualifications with section 2.1.1.4 of Annex 1 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation published by the International Civil Aviation Organization.
(D) The adoption of the recommendations contained in document 10103 of the International Civil Aviation Organization titled ‘‘Guidance on the Implementation of ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices for Tiltrotors’’, published in 2019, as appropriate.
(E) Practical pathways for pilot qualification and operations.
(F) Performance-based requirements for energy reserves and other range- and endurance-related designs and technologies that reflect the capabilities and intended operations of the aircraft.
(G) A combination of pilot training requirements, including simulators, to ensure the safe operation of powered-lift aircraft.
(3) REPORT.—The Committee shall submit to the Administrator a report detailing the findings and recommendations of the Committee.
(d) POWERED-LIFT AIRCRAFT RULEMAKING.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 270 days after the date on which the Committee submits the report under subsection (c)(3), the Administrator shall initiate a rulemaking to implement the findings and recommendations of the Committee, as determined appropriate by the Administrator.
(2) REQUIREMENTS.—In developing the rulemaking under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall—
(A) consult with the Secretary of Defense with regard to methods for pilots to gain proficiency and earn the necessary ratings required to act as a pilot-in-command of powered-lift aircraft;
(B) consider and plan for unmanned and remotely piloted powered-lift aircraft, and the associated elements of such aircraft, through the promulgation of performance based regulations;
(C) consider any information and experience gained from operations and efforts that occur as a result of the Special Federal Aviation Regulation of the FAA titled ‘‘Integration of Powered-Lift: Pilot Certification and Operations; Miscellaneous Amendments Related to Rotorcraft and Airplanes’’, issued on June 14, 2023 (2120–AL72);
(D) consider whether to grant an individual with an existing commercial airplane (single- or multi-engine) or helicopter pilot certificate the authority to serve as pilot-in-command of a powered-lift aircraft in commercial operation following the completion of an FAA-approved pilot type rating for such type of aircraft;
(E) work to harmonize the certification and operational requirements of the FAA with those of civil aviation authorities with bilateral safety agreements in place with the United States, to the extent such harmonization does not negatively impact domestic manufacturers and operators; and
(F) consider and plan for the use of alternative fuel types and propulsion methods, including reviewing the performance-based nature of parts 33 and 35 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, and any related recommendations provided to the Administrator by the aviation rulemaking advisory committee described in section 956.
 
SEC. 956. ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS REGULATIONS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall task the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (in this section referred to as the ‘‘Committee’’) to provide the Administrator with specific findings and recommendations for regulations related to the certification and installation of—
(1) electric engines and propellers;
(2) hybrid electric engines and propulsion systems;
(3) hydrogen fuel cells;
(4) hydrogen combustion engines or propulsion systems; and
(5) other new or novel propulsion mechanisms and methods as determined appropriate by the Administrator.
(b) CONSIDERATIONS.—In carrying out subsection (a), the Committee shall consider, at a minimum, the following:
(1) Outcome-driven safety objectives to spur innovation and technology adoption, and promote the development of performance-based regulations.
(2) Lessons and insights learned from previously published special conditions and other published airworthiness criteria for novel engines, propellers, and aircraft.
(3) The requirements of part 33 and part 35 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, any boundaries of applicability for standalone engine type certificates (including highly integrated systems), and the use of technical standards order authorizations.
(c) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after providing findings and recommendations under subsection (a), the Committee shall submit to the Administrator and the appropriate committees o Congress a report containing such findings and recommendations.
(d) BRIEFING.—Not later than 180 days after the date on which the Committee submits the report under subsection (c), the Administrator shall brief the appropriate committees of Congress regarding plans of the FAA in response to the findings and recommendations contained in the report.
 
SEC. 957. POWERED-LIFT AIRCRAFT ENTRY INTO SERVICE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall, in consultation with exclusive bargaining representatives of air traffic controllers certified under section 7111 of title 5, United States Code, and any relevant stakeholder as determined appropriate by the Administrator, take such actions as may be necessary to safely integrate powered-lift aircraft into the national airspace system, including in controlled airspace, and learn from any efforts to adopt and update related policy and guidance.
(b) AIR TRAFFIC POLICIES FOR ENTRY INTO SERVICE.—Not later than 40 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall update air traffic orders and policies, to the extent necessary, and address air traffic control system challenges in order to allow for—
(1) the use of existing air traffic procedures, where determined to be safe by the Administrator, by powered-lift aircraft; and
(2) the approval of letters of agreement between air traffic control system facilities and powered-lift operators and infrastructure operators to minimize the amount of active coordination required for safe recurring powered-lift aircraft operations, as appropriate.
(c) LONG-TERM AIR TRAFFIC POLICIES.—Beginning 40 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall—
(1) continue to update air traffic orders and policies to support the operation of powered-lift aircraft;
(2) to the extent necessary, develop powered-lift specific procedures for airports, heliports, and vertiports;
(3) evaluate the human factors impacts on controllers associated with managing powered-lift aircraft operations, consider the impact of additional operations on air traffic controller staffing, and make necessary changes to staffing, procedures, regulations, and orders; and
(4) consider the use of third-party service providers to manage increased operations in controlled airspace to support, supplement, and enhance the work of air traffic controllers.
 
SEC. 958. INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORTING VERTICAL FLIGHT.
(a) UPDATE TO DESIGN STANDARDS.—The Administrator shall—
(1) not later than December 31, 2024, publish an update to the memorandum of the FAA titled ‘‘Engineering Brief No. 105, Vertiport Design’’, issued on September 21, 2022 (EB No. 105);
(2) not later than December 31, 2025, publish a performance-based vertiport design advisory circular; and
(3) begin the work necessary to update the advisory circular of the FAA titled ‘‘Heliport Design’’ (Advisory Circular 150/ 5390) in order to provide performance-based guidance for heliport
design, including consideration of alternative fuel and propulsion mechanisms.
(b) ENGINEERING BRIEF SUNSET.—Upon the publication of an advisory circular pursuant to subsection (a)(2), the Administrator shall cancel the memorandum described in subsection (a)(1).
(c) DUAL USE FACILITIES.—The Administrator shall establish a mechanism by which owners and operators of aviation infrastructure can safely accommodate, or file a notice to accommodate, powered-lift aircraft if such infrastructure meets the safety requirements or guidance of the FAA for such aircraft.
(d) GUIDANCE, FORMS, AND PLANNING.—The Administrator shall—
(1) not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, ensure airport district offices of the FAA have sufficient guidance and policy direction regarding the use and applicability of heliport and vertiport design standards of the FAA, and update such guidance routinely;
(2) determine if updates to FAA Form 7460 and Form 7480 are necessary and update such forms, as appropriate; and
(3) ensure that the methodology and underlying data sources of the Terminal Area Forecast of the FAA include commercial operations conducted by aircraft regardless of propulsion type or fuel type.
 
SEC. 959. CHARTING OF AVIATION INFRASTRUCTURE.
The Administrator shall increase efforts to update and keep current the Airport Master Record of the FAA, including by establishing a streamlined process by which the owners and operators
of public and private aviation facilities with nontemporary, nonintermittent operations are encouraged to keep the information on such facilities current.
 
SEC. 960. ADVANCED AIR MOBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE PILOT PROGRAM EXTENSION.
Section 101 of division Q of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (49 U.S.C. 40101 note) is amended—
(1) in subsection (b)—
(A) in paragraph (2)—
(i) in subparagraph (A) by inserting ‘‘, as well as the use of existing airport and heliport infrastructure that may require modifications to safely accommodate AAM operations,’’ after ‘‘vertiport infrastructure’’; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B)—
(I) in clause (iii) by striking ‘‘vertiport’’ and inserting ‘‘locations for’’;
(II) in clause (iv) by inserting ‘‘and guidance’’ after ‘‘any standards’’;
(III) in clause (v) by striking ‘‘vertiport infrastructure’’ and inserting ‘‘urban air mobility and
regional air mobility operations’’; and
(IV) in clause (x) by inserting ‘‘or the modification of aviation infrastructure’’ after ‘‘operation of
a vertiport’’;
(B) in paragraph (4)(B) by inserting ‘‘the Department of Defense, the National Guard,’’ before ‘‘or’’; and
(C) in paragraph (6)—
(i) in subparagraph (A) by striking ‘‘September 30, 2025’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2027’’; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B)—
(I) in clause (i) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end;
(II) in clause (ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and
(III) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(iii) a description of—
‘‘(I) initial community engagement efforts and responses from the public on the planning and
development efforts of eligible entities related to urban air mobility and regional air mobility operations;
‘‘(II) how eligible entities are planning for and encouraging early adoption of urban air mobility
and regional air mobility operations;
‘‘(III) what role each level of government plays in the process; and
‘‘(IV) whether such entities recommend specific regulatory or guidance actions be taken by the
Secretary or any other head of a Federal agency in order to support such early adoption.’’;
(2) by striking subsection (c)(1) and inserting the following:
‘‘(1) AUTHORIZATION.—Out of amounts made available under section 106(k) of title 49, United States Code, there are authorized to carry out this section $12,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2023 through 2026, to remain available until expended.’’;
(3) in subsection (d) by striking ‘‘2024’’ and inserting ‘‘2026’’ each place it appears; and
(4) in subsection (e)—
(A) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
‘‘(1) ADVANCED AIR MOBILITY; AAM; REGIONAL AIR MOBILITY; URBAN AIR MOBILITY; VERTIPORT.—The terms ‘advanced air mobility’, ‘AAM’, ‘regional air mobility’, ‘urban air mobility’,
and ‘vertiport’ have the meaning given such terms in section 2(i) of the Advanced Air Mobility Coordination and Leadership Act (49 U.S.C. 40101 note).’’; and
(B) by striking paragraphs (9) and (10).
 
SEC. 961. CENTER FOR ADVANCED AVIATION TECHNOLOGIES.
(a) PLAN.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall develop a plan to establish a Center for Advanced Aviation Technologies to support the testing
and advancement of new and emerging aviation technologies.
(b) CONSULTATION.—In developing the plan under subsection (a), the Administrator may consult with the Advanced Air Mobility Working Group established in the Advanced Air Mobility Coordination and Leadership Act (Public Law 117–203), as amended by this Act, and the interagency working group established in section 1042 of this Act.
(c) CONSIDERATIONS.—In developing the plan under subsection (a), the Administrator shall consider as roles and responsibilities for the Center for Advanced Aviation Technologies—
(1) developing an airspace laboratory and flight demonstration zones to facilitate the safe integration of advanced air mobility aircraft into the national airspace system, with at least 1 such zone to be established within the same geographic region as the Center for Advanced Aviation Technologies and that also has aviation manufacturers with relevant expertise, such as powered-lift;
(2) establishing testing corridors for the purposes of validating air traffic requirements for advanced air mobility operations, operational procedures, and performance requirements,
with at least 1 such corridor to be established within the same geographic region as the Center for Advanced Aviation Technologies;
(3) developing and facilitating technology partnerships with, and between, industry, academia, and other government agencies, and supporting such partnerships;
(4) identifying new and emerging aviation technologies, innovative aviation concepts, and relevant aviation services, including advanced air mobility, powered-lift aircraft, and other
advanced aviation technologies, as determined appropriate by the Administrator; and
(5) any other duties, as determined appropriate by the Administrator.
(d) SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate the plan developed under subsection (a).
(e) CENTER.—Not later than September 30, 2026, the Administrator shall establish the Center for Advanced Aviation Technologies in accordance with the plan developed under subsection (a). In choosing the location for the Center for Advanced Aviation Technologies, the Administrator shall give preference to a community or region with a strong aeronautical presence, specifically the presence of—
(1) a large commercial airport or large air logistics center;
(2) aviation manufacturing with expertise in advanced aviation technologies, such as powered-lift;
(3) existing FAA facilities or offices, such as a Center, Institute, certificate management office, or a regional headquarters;
(4) airspace utilized for advanced aviation technology testing activity, and capable of supporting a wide range of use cases;
(5) proximity to both rural and urban communities;
(6) State, local, or Tribal governments;
(7) programs to support public-private partnerships for advanced aviation technologies; and
(8) academic institutions that offer programs relating to advanced aviation technologies engineering.
(f) AUTHORIZATION.—Out of amounts made available under section 106(k) of title 49, United States Code, $35,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2028 is authorized to carry out this section.
(g) INTERACTION WITH OTHER ENTITIES.—The Administrator, in carrying out this section, shall, to the maximum extent practicable, leverage the research and testing capacity and capabilities of the Center of Excellence for Unmanned Aircraft Systems and, as appropriate, the unmanned aircraft test ranges established in section 44803 of title 49, United States Code.
(h) SAVINGS CLAUSES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to interfere with any of the following activities:
(1) The ongoing activities of the unmanned aircraft test ranges established in section 44803 of title 49, United States Code, to the maximum extent practicable.
(2) The ongoing activities of the William J. Hughes Technical Center for Advanced Aerospace, to the maximum extent practicable.
(3) The ongoing activities of the Center of Excellence for Unmanned Aircraft Systems, to the maximum extent practicable.
(4) The ongoing activities of the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, to the maximum extent practicable.

 

2024 – FAA releases Draft AC 21.17-4 Type Certification – Powered Lift – providing guidance for the type, production, and airworthiness certification of powered-lift.

This AC also designates the criteria in appendix A as an acceptable means, but not the only means, of showing compliance with 14 CFR 21.17(b) for FAA type certification of certain powered-lift.

 

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.

 

 

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

The NASA vision for AAM includes UAM – a concept involving VTOL aircraft, decentralized (or federated) traffic management, and new infrastructure to support urban, suburban, and rural flight operations.

High-density performance-based routes or corridors enable prompt transportation of people and goods from node to node, where each node represents a vertiport, defined as an identifiable ground or elevated area used for the takeoff and landing of VTOL aircraft. In the presence of uncertainty surrounding aircraft turnaround time on the ground, vertiports are the critical end points in scheduling, sequencing, and spacing (SSS) of aircraft in dense metropolitan environments.

This ConOps includes vertiports of varying sizes, configurations, service offerings, and locations.

UAM air vehicles include conventional rotorcraft, unmanned VTOL aircraft, and novel piloted VTOL aircraft.

This ConOps focuses on operations at a high-density vertiport, supported by a Vertiport Automation System (VAS) with high-throughput operation capabilities under conditions defined as NASA’s Urban Air Mobility Maturity Level Four (UML-4).

 

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.

 

 

2024Draft Engineering Brief 105A, Vertiport Design

Draft Engineering Brief 105A, Vertiport Design, and Comment Matrix
Comments received by October 18, 2024, will be considered for inclusion in the EB update. Please submit comments using the provided comment matrix to vertiports@faa.gov.

Notice of Availability, Notice of Industry Day Meeting, and Request for Comment on the Draft Engineering Brief 105A for Vertiport Design (89 FR 75629), September 16, 2024

Draft Engineering Brief 105A Virtual Industry Day

When: Monday, September 30, 2024, 11:00 a.m.–4:00 p.m., EDT

What: During this meeting, the FAA will provide an overview of the EB update, discuss some critical aspects of the draft currently under consideration, and provide an opportunity for attendees to ask questions about it.

Register: Preregistration is necessary to receive the link for the virtual industry day meeting.

Register for the Draft EB 105A Virtual Industry Day

Supplemental Guidance to AC 150/5345-44K, Specification for Runway and Taxiway Signs

Draft Engineering Brief 104, Supplemental Guidance to Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5345-44K (Specification for Runway and Taxiway Signs)

This EB addresses omissions and ambiguities in AC 150/5345-44K. It provides FAA safety personnel, airport owner operators and their support staff, and signage providers with interim guidance in interpreting and applying the AC while we revise the AC. This is a revised draft.

Comment deadline: November 14, 2022

See also: AC 150/5345-44K

 

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

6 USC 195g: Countering Unmanned Aircraft Systems Coordinator

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.”

49 U.S. Code § 44810 requires the FAA to work with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the heads of other relevant Federal departments and agencies for the purpose of ensuring that technologies or systems that are developed, tested, or deployed by Federal departments and agencies to detect and mitigate potential risks posed by errant or hostile unmanned aircraft system operations do not adversely impact or interfere with safe airport operations, navigation, air traffic services, or the safe and efficient operation of the national airspace system.

50 USC 2661 authorizes the US DOE 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.

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 SheetCybersecurity 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 dronesINTERPOL 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.

2020 – Interagency Security Committee – Protecting against the threat of UAS – One of the priorities of the DHS is the protection of federal employees and private citizens who work within and visit federally-owned or -leased facilities. The Interagency Security Committee (ISC), chaired by the DHS, consists of 64 departments and agencies and has a mission to develop security policies, standards, and recommendations for nonmilitary federal facilities in the US. This document, known as Protecting Against the Threat of UAS: An Interagency Security Committee Best Practice, outlines awareness and mitigation measures for use by federal departments and agencies to protect against malicious UAS operations. Topics covered in this document include the following:

• An overview of UAS;

• Threats posed by UAS;

• Vulnerability assessments;

• Protective measures and activities;

• How to develop a facility response plan for UAS incidents;

• How to increase workforce awareness; and

• How to engage with community partners.

Although most agencies do not have the authority to disable, disrupt, or seize control of an unmanned aircraft, there are other effective risk reduction measures they may implement. This document provides best practices that any organization or facility can use to mitigate UAS threats. This document represents exemplary collaboration within the ISC Unmanned Aircraft Systems Working Group and across the entire ISC.

 

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

Section 383 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 mandated the FAA ensure that technologies or systems that are developed, tested, or deployed by authorized federal departments and agencies to detect and mitigate potential risks posed by errant or hostile UAS or drone operations do not adversely impact or interfere with the safe and efficient operation of the NAS. In addition, Section 383 requires the FAA to develop a plan for the certification, permitting, authorizing, or allowing of UAS detection and mitigation systems in the NAS, and to convene an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) to make recommendations for such a plan.

Consistent with Section 383, the FAA launched an effort to test and evaluate technologies and systems that could detect and mitigate potential safety risks posed by unmanned aircraft at and near airports.

On March 2, 2021, the FAA selected the following airports to participate in the testing program:

  • Atlantic City International Airport, Atlantic City, New Jersey
  • Syracuse Hancock International Airport, Syracuse, New York
  • Rickenbacker International Airport, Columbus, Ohio
  • Huntsville International Airport, Huntsville, Alabama
  • Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, Seattle, Washington

The research will lead to the implementation of new technologies that will make airports safer for passengers and traditional, crewed aircraft. Researchers plan to test and evaluate at least 10 technologies or systems at these airports. Testing began in 2022 and continues through 2023. The results from this testing and evaluation effort will inform other components of Section 383, including the ARC and the plan for certifying, permitting, or authorizing UAS detection and mitigation technologies at airports around the country.

 

2022 – The White House issued FACT SHEET: The Domestic Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems National Action Plan

It stated that although UAS have become a regular feature of American life and are used for recreation, research, and commerce, the proliferation of this new technology has also introduced new risks to public safety, privacy, and homeland security.

Malicious actors have increasingly used UAS domestically to commit crimes, conduct illegal surveillance and industrial espionage, and thwart law enforcement efforts at the local, state, and Federal level.

Therefore, the Biden Administration released the first whole-of-government plan to address UAS threats in the Homeland.

Through the Domestic Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems National Action Plan, the Administration is now working to expand where they can protect against nefarious UAS activity, who is authorized to take action, and how it can be accomplished lawfully.

The Plan seeks to achieve this legitimate expansion while safeguarding the airspace, communications spectrums, individual privacy, civil liberties, and civil rights.

To achieve this balance, the Administration called upon Congress to adopt legislation to close critical gaps in existing law and policy that currently impede government and law enforcement from protecting the American people and their vital security interests.

UAS serve many beneficial commercial and recreational purposes.

As has been the case with many technological advances, they can also be exploited for pernicious purposes.

To protect the Homeland and prevent their growing use from threatening the safety and security of the people, communities, and institutions, this Counter-UAS National Action Plan will set new ground rules for the expanding uses of UAS and improve the defenses against the exploitation of UAS for inappropriate or dangerous purposes.

The Plan provides eight key recommendations for action:

1. Work with Congress to enact a new legislative proposal to expand the set of tools and actors who can protect against UAS by reauthorizing and expanding existing counter‑UAS authorities for the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, Defense, State, as well as the Central Intelligence Agency and NASA in limited situations. The proposal also seeks to expand UAS detection authorities for state, local, territorial and Tribal (SLTT) law enforcement agencies and critical infrastructure owners and operators.  The proposal would also create a Federally-sponsored pilot program for selected SLTT law enforcement agency participants to perform UAS mitigation activities and permit critical infrastructure owners and operators to purchase authorized equipment to be used by appropriate Federal or SLTT law enforcement agencies to protect their facilities;

2. Establish a list of US Government authorized detection equipment, approved by Federal security and regulatory agencies, to guide authorized entities in purchasing UAS detection systems in order to avoid the risks of inadvertent disruption to airspace or the communications spectrum;

3. Establish oversight and enablement mechanisms to support critical infrastructure owners and operators in purchasing counter-UAS equipment for use by authorized Federal entities or SLTT law enforcement agencies;

4. Establish a National Counter-UAS Training Center to increase training accessibility and promote interagency cross-training and collaboration;

5. Create a Federal UAS incident tracking database as a government-wide repository for departments and agencies to have a better understanding of the overall domestic threat;

6. Establish a mechanism to coordinate research, development, testing, and evaluation on UAS detection and mitigation technology across the Federal government;

7. Work with Congress to enact a comprehensive criminal statute that sets clear standards for legal and illegal uses, closes loopholes in existing Federal law, and establishes adequate penalties to deter the most serious UAS-related crimes; and

8. Enhance cooperation with the international community on counter‑UAS technologies, as well as the systems designed to defeat them.

 

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

In the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, Congress addressed privacy and UAS.

SEC. 357. UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS PRIVACY POLICY.

It is the policy of the United States that the operation of any unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system shall be carried out in a manner that respects and protects personal privacy consistent with the United States Constitution and Federal, State, and local law.

SEC. 358. UAS PRIVACY REVIEW.

(a) Review.–The Comptroller General of the United States, in consideration of relevant efforts led by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, shall carry out a review of the privacy issues and concerns associated with the operation of unmanned aircraft systems in the national airspace system.

(b) Consultation.–In carrying out the review, the Comptroller General shall–

(1) consult with the Department of Transportation and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration of the Department of Commerce on its ongoing efforts responsive to the Presidential memorandum titled “Promoting Economic Competitiveness While Safeguarding Privacy, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties in Domestic Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems” and dated February 15, 2015;

(2) examine and identify the existing Federal, State, or relevant local laws that address an individual’s personal privacy;

(3) identify specific issues and concerns that may limit the availability of civil or criminal legal remedies regarding inappropriate operation of unmanned aircraft systems in the national airspace system;

(4) identify any deficiencies in Federal, State, or local privacy protections; and

(5) provide recommendations to address any limitations and deficiencies identified in paragraphs (3) and (4).

(c) Report.–Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on the results of the review required under subsection (a).

SEC. 375. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AUTHORITY.

(a) In General.–A violation of a privacy policy by a person that uses an unmanned aircraft system for compensation or hire, or in the furtherance of a business enterprise, in the national airspace system shall be an unfair and deceptive practice in violation of section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45(a)).

(b) Definitions.–In this section, the terms “unmanned aircraft” and “unmanned aircraft system” have the meanings given those terms in section 44801 of title 49, United States Code.

SEC. 378. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of Congress that–

(1) each person that uses an unmanned aircraft system for compensation or hire, or in the furtherance of a business enterprise, except those operated for purposes protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution, should have a written privacy policy consistent with section 357 that is appropriate to the nature and scope of the activities regarding the collection, use, retention, dissemination, and deletion of any data collected during the operation of an unmanned aircraft system;

(2) each privacy policy described in paragraph (1) should be periodically reviewed and updated as necessary; and

(3) each privacy policy described in paragraph (1) should be publicly available.

In the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, Congress addressed UAS crimes.

SEC. 381. UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS IN RESTRICTED BUILDINGS OR GROUNDS.

Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding after subsection (a)(4) the following:

(5) knowingly and willfully operates an unmanned aircraft system with the intent to knowingly and willfully direct or otherwise cause such unmanned aircraft system to enter or operate within or above a restricted building or grounds;

SEC. 382. PROHIBITION.

(a) Amendment.–Chapter 2 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

Sec. 40A. Operation of unauthorized unmanned aircraft over wildfires

(a) In General.–Except as provided in subsection (b), an individual who operates an unmanned aircraft and knowingly or recklessly interferes with a wildfire suppression, or law enforcement or emergency response efforts related to a wildfire suppression, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both.

(b) Exceptions.–This section does not apply to the operation of an unmanned aircraft conducted by a unit or agency of the United States Government or of a State, tribal, or local government (including any individual conducting such operation pursuant to a contract or other agreement entered into with the unit or agency) for the purpose of protecting the public safety and welfare, including firefighting, law enforcement, or emergency response.

(c) Definitions.–In this section, the following definitions apply:

(1) Unmanned aircraft.–The term `unmanned aircraft’ has the meaning given the term in section 44801 of title 49, United States Code.

(2) Wildfire.–The term `wildfire’ has the meaning given that term in section 2 of the Emergency Wildfire Suppression Act (42 U.S.C. 1856m).

(3) Wildfire suppression.–The term `wildfire suppression’ means an effort to contain, extinguish, or suppress a wildfire.

(b) Conforming Amendment.–The table of sections for chapter 2 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 40 the following:

40A. Operation of unauthorized unmanned aircraft over wildfires.

SEC. 384. UNSAFE OPERATION OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT.

(a) In General.–Chapter 2 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 39A the following:

Sec. 39B. Unsafe operation of unmanned aircraft

(a) Offense.–Any person who operates an unmanned aircraft and:

(1) Knowingly interferes with, or disrupts the operation of, an aircraft carrying 1 or more occupants operating in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, in a manner that poses an imminent safety hazard to such occupants, shall be punished as provided in subsection (c).

(2) Recklessly interferes with, or disrupts the operation of, an aircraft carrying 1 or more occupants operating in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, in a manner that poses an imminent safety hazard to such occupants, shall be punished as provided in subsection (c).

(b) Operation of Unmanned Aircraft in Close Proximity to Airports.–

(1) In general.–Any person who, without authorization, knowingly operates an unmanned aircraft within a runway exclusion zone shall be punished as provided in subsection (c).

(2) Runway exclusion zone defined.–In this subsection, the term `runway exclusion zone’ means a rectangular area–

(A) centered on the centerline of an active runway of an airport immediately around which the airspace is designated as class B, class C, or class D airspace at the surface under part 71 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations; and

(B) the length of which extends parallel to the runway’s centerline to points that are 1 statute mile from each end of the runway and the width of which is \1/2\ statute mile.

(c) Penalty.–

(1) In general.–Except as provided in paragraph (2), the punishment for an offense under subsections (a) or (b) shall be a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or both.

(2) Serious bodily injury or death.–Any person who:

(A) Causes serious bodily injury or death during the commission of an offense under subsection (a)(2) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for a term of up to 10 years, or both.

(B) Causes, or attempts or conspires to cause, serious bodily injury or death during the commission of an offense under subsections (a)(1) and (b) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both.

(b) Table of Contents.–The table of contents for chapter 2 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 39A the following:

39B. Unsafe operation of unmanned aircraft.

Section 848 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2020

PROHIBITION ON OPERATION OR PROCUREMENT OF FOREIGN-MADE UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS. (a) Prohibition on Agency Operation or Procurement.–The Secretary of Defense may not operate or enter into or renew a contract for the procurement of–

(1) a covered unmanned aircraft system that–

(A) is manufactured in a covered foreign country or by an entity domiciled in a covered foreign country;

(B) uses flight controllers, radios, data transmission devices, cameras, or gimbals manufactured in a covered foreign country or by an entity domiciled in a covered foreign country;

(C) uses a ground control system or operating software developed in a covered foreign country or by an entity domiciled in a covered foreign country; or

(D) uses network connectivity or data storage located in or administered by an entity domiciled in a covered foreign country; or

(2) a system manufactured in a covered foreign country or by an entity domiciled in a covered foreign country for the detection or identification of covered unmanned aircraft systems.

(b) Exemption.–The Secretary of Defense is exempt from the restriction under subsection (a) if the operation or procurement is for the purposes of–

(1) Counter-UAS surrogate testing and training; or

(2) intelligence, electronic warfare, and information warfare operations, testing, analysis, and training.

(c) Waiver.–The Secretary of Defense may waive the restriction under subsection (a) on a case by case basis by certifying in writing to the congressional defense committees that the operation or procurement is required in the national interest of the United States.

(d) Definitions.–In this section:

(1) Covered foreign country.–The term “covered foreign country” means the People’s Republic of China.

(2) Covered unmanned aircraft system.–The term “covered unmanned aircraft system” means an unmanned aircraft system and any related services and equipment.

49 USC 46502 – Aircraft Piracy

(a) In Special Aircraft Jurisdiction.—(1) In this subsection—

(A) “aircraft piracy” means seizing or exercising control of an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States by force, violence, threat of force or violence, or any form of intimidation, and with wrongful intent.

(B) an attempt to commit aircraft piracy is in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States although the aircraft is not in flight at the time of the attempt if the aircraft would have been in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States had the aircraft piracy been completed.

(2) An individual committing or attempting or conspiring to commit aircraft piracy—

(A) shall be imprisoned for at least 20 years; or

(B) notwithstanding section 3559(b) of title 18, if the death of another individual results from the commission or attempt, shall be put to death or imprisoned for life.

(b) Outside Special Aircraft Jurisdiction.—(1) An individual committing or conspiring to commit an offense (as defined in the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft) on an aircraft in flight outside the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States—

(A) shall be imprisoned for at least 20 years; or

(B) notwithstanding section 3559(b) of title 18, if the death of another individual results from the commission or attempt, shall be put to death or imprisoned for life.

(2) There is jurisdiction over the offense in paragraph (1) if—

(A) a national of the United States was aboard the aircraft;

(B) an offender is a national of the United States; or

(C) an offender is afterwards found in the United States.

(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term “national of the United States” has the meaning prescribed in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)).

18 USC 32 – Aircraft Sabotage

§32. Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities

(a) Whoever willfully—

(1) sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce;

(2) places or causes to be placed a destructive device or substance in, upon, or in proximity to, or otherwise makes or causes to be made unworkable or unusable or hazardous to work or use, any such aircraft, or any part or other materials used or intended to be used in connection with the operation of such aircraft, if such placing or causing to be placed or such making or causing to be made is likely to endanger the safety of any such aircraft;

(3) sets fire to, damages, destroys, or disables any air navigation facility, or interferes by force or violence with the operation of such facility, if such fire, damaging, destroying, disabling, or interfering is likely to endanger the safety of any such aircraft in flight;

(4) with the intent to damage, destroy, or disable any such aircraft, sets fire to, damages, destroys, or disables or places a destructive device or substance in, upon, or in proximity to, any appliance or structure, ramp, landing area, property, machine, or apparatus, or any facility or other material used, or intended to be used, in connection with the operation, maintenance, loading, unloading or storage of any such aircraft or any cargo carried or intended to be carried on any such aircraft;

(5) interferes with or disables, with intent to endanger the safety of any person or with a reckless disregard for the safety of human life, anyone engaged in the authorized operation of such aircraft or any air navigation facility aiding in the navigation of any such aircraft;

(6) performs an act of violence against or incapacitates any individual on any such aircraft, if such act of violence or incapacitation is likely to endanger the safety of such aircraft;

(7) communicates information, knowing the information to be false and under circumstances in which such information may reasonably be believed, thereby endangering the safety of any such aircraft in flight; or

(8) attempts or conspires to do anything prohibited under paragraphs (1) through (7) of this subsection;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years or both.

(b) Whoever willfully—

(1) performs an act of violence against any individual on board any civil aircraft registered in a country other than the United States while such aircraft is in flight, if such act is likely to endanger the safety of that aircraft;

(2) destroys a civil aircraft registered in a country other than the United States while such aircraft is in service or causes damage to such an aircraft which renders that aircraft incapable of flight or which is likely to endanger that aircraft’s safety in flight;

(3) places or causes to be placed on a civil aircraft registered in a country other than the United States while such aircraft is in service, a device or substance which is likely to destroy that aircraft, or to cause damage to that aircraft which renders that aircraft incapable of flight or which is likely to endanger that aircraft’s safety in flight; or

(4) attempts or conspires to commit an offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this subsection;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. There is jurisdiction over an offense under this subsection if a national of the United States was on board, or would have been on board, the aircraft; an offender is a national of the United States; or an offender is afterwards found in the United States. For purposes of this subsection, the term “national of the United States” has the meaning prescribed in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

(c) Whoever willfully imparts or conveys any threat to do an act which would violate any of paragraphs (1) through (6) of subsection (a) or any of paragraphs (1) through (3) of subsection (b) of this section, with an apparent determination and will to carry the threat into execution shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

18 USC 40A: Operation of unauthorized unmanned aircraft over wildfires

(a) In General. – Except as provided in subsection (b), an individual who operates an unmanned aircraft and knowingly or recklessly interferes with a wildfire suppression, or law enforcement or emergency response efforts related to a wildfire suppression, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both.

(b) Exceptions. – This section does not apply to the operation of an unmanned aircraft conducted by a unit or agency of the United States Government or of a State, tribal, or local government (including any individual conducting such operation pursuant to a contract or other agreement entered into with the unit or agency) for the purpose of protecting the public safety and welfare, including firefighting, law enforcement, or emergency response.

(c) Definitions. – In this section, the following definitions apply:

(1) Unmanned aircraft. – The term “unmanned aircraft” has the meaning given the term in section 44801 of title 49, United States Code.

(2) Wildfire. – The term “wildfire” has the meaning given that term in section 2 of the Emergency Wildfire Suppression Act (42 U.S.C. 1856m).

(3) Wildfire suppression. – The term “wildfire suppression” means an effort to contain, extinguish, or suppress a wildfire.

18 USC 39B: Unsafe operation of unmanned aircraft

(a) Offense. – Any person who operates an unmanned aircraft and:

(1) Knowingly interferes with, or disrupts the operation of, an aircraft carrying 1 or more occupants operating in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, in a manner that poses an imminent safety hazard to such occupants, shall be punished as provided in subsection (c).

(2) Recklessly interferes with, or disrupts the operation of, an aircraft carrying 1 or more occupants operating in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, in a manner that poses an imminent safety hazard to such occupants, shall be punished as provided in subsection (c).

(b) Operation of Unmanned Aircraft in Close Proximity to Airports. –

(1) In general. – Any person who, without authorization, knowingly operates an unmanned aircraft within a runway exclusion zone shall be punished as provided in subsection (c).

(2) Runway exclusion zone defined. – In this subsection, the term “runway exclusion zone” means a rectangular area –

(A) centered on the centerline of an active runway of an airport immediately around which the airspace is designated as class B, class C, or class D airspace at the surface under part 71 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations; and

(B) the length of which extends parallel to the runway’s centerline to points that are 1 statute mile from each end of the runway and the width of which is ½ statute mile.

(c) Penalty. –

(1) In general. – Except as provided in paragraph (2), the punishment for an offense under subsections (a) or (b) shall be a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or both.

(2) Serious bodily injury or death. – Any person who:

(A) Causes serious bodily injury or death during the commission of an offense under subsection (a)(2) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for a term of up to 10 years, or both.

(B) Causes, or attempts or conspires to cause, serious bodily injury or death during the commission of an offense under subsections (a)(1) and (b) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both.

 

 

16 USC  742j-1: Airborne hunting

(a) Prohibition; penalty

Any person who—

(1) while airborne in an aircraft shoots or attempts to shoot for the purpose of capturing or killing any bird, fish, or other animal; or

(2) uses an aircraft to harass any bird, fish, or other animal; or

(3) knowingly participates in using an aircraft for any purpose referred to in paragraph (1) or (2); shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(b) Exception; report of State to Secretary

(1) This section shall not apply to any person if such person is employed by, or is an authorized agent of or is operating under a license or permit of, any State or the United States to administer or protect or aid in the administration or protection of land, water, wildlife, livestock, domesticated animals, human life, or crops, and each such person so operating under a license or permit shall report to the applicable issuing authority each calendar quarter the number and type of animals so taken.

(2) In any case in which a State, or any agency thereof, issues a permit referred to in paragraph (1) of this subsection, it shall file with the Secretary of the Interior an annual report containing such information as the Secretary shall prescribe, including but not limited to—

(A) the name and address of each person to whom a permit was issued;

(B) a description of the animals authorized to be taken thereunder, the number of animals authorized to be taken, and a description of the area from which the animals are authorized to be taken;

(C) the number and type of animals taken by such person to whom a permit was issued; and

(D) the reason for issuing the permit.

(c) “Aircraft” defined

As used in this section, the term “aircraft” means any contrivance used for flight in the air.

(d) Enforcement; regulations; arrest; search; issuance and execution of warrants and process; cooperative agreements

The Secretary of the Interior shall enforce the provisions of this section and shall promulgate such regulations as he deems necessary and appropriate to carry out such enforcement. Any employee of the Department of the Interior authorized by the Secretary of the Interior to enforce the provisions of this section may, without warrant, arrest any person committing in his presence or view a violation of this section or of any regulation issued hereunder and take such person immediately for examination or trial before an officer or court of competent jurisdiction; may execute any warrant or other process issued by an officer or court of competent jurisdiction for the enforcement of the provisions of this section; and may, with or without a warrant, as authorized by law, search any place. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to enter into cooperative agreements with State fish and wildlife agencies or other appropriate State authorities to facilitate enforcement of this section, and by such agreements to delegate such enforcement authority to State law enforcement personnel as he deems appropriate for effective enforcement of this section. Any judge of any court established under the laws of the United States, and any United States magistrate judge may, within his respective jurisdiction, upon proper oath or affirmation showing probable cause, issue warrants in all such cases.

(e) Forfeiture

All birds, fish, or other animals shot or captured contrary to the provisions of this section, or of any regulation issued hereunder, and all guns, aircraft, and other equipment used to aid in the shooting, attempting to shoot, capturing, or harassing of any bird, fish, or other animal in violation of this section or of any regulation issued hereunder shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States.

(f) Certain customs laws applied

All provisions of law relating to the seizure, forfeiture, and condemnation of a vessel for violation of the customs laws, the disposition of such vessel or the proceeds from the sale thereof, and the remission or mitigation of such forfeitures, shall apply to the seizures and forfeitures incurred, or alleged to have been incurred, under the provisions of this section, insofar as such provisions of law are applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions of this section; except that all powers, rights, and duties conferred or imposed by the customs laws upon any officer or employee of the Treasury Department shall, for the purposes of this section, be exercised or performed by the Secretary of the Interior or by such persons as he may designate.

50 CFR Part 19: Airborne Hunting

19.1 Purpose of regulations.

The regulations contained in this part provide rules relative to the prohibition against shooting or harassing of wildlife from any aircraft, provide the requirements for the contents and filing of annual reports by the States regarding permits issued for such shooting or harassing, and provide regulations necessary for effective enforcement of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 as amended (16 U.S.C. 742a – j-1).

19.2 Scope of regulations.

The regulations contained in this part apply to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, to all United States citizens whether within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States or on the high seas or on board aircraft in flight over the high seas, and to all persons on board aircraft belonging in whole or in part to any United States citizen, firm, or partnership, or corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or any State, territory or possession thereof.

19.3 Relation to other laws.

The exemptions to general prohibitions of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, that permit airborne hunting in certain circumstances (See subpart B of this part) do not supersede, or authorize the violation of, other laws designed for the conservation or protection of wildlife, including those laws prohibiting the shooting or harassing of bald and golden eagles, polar bears and other marine mammals, migratory birds, and other wildlife, except to the extent that airborne hunting is authorized by regulations or permits issued under authority of those laws. (See e.g., § 21.100 of this subchapter.)

19.4 Definitions.

In addition to definitions contained in part 10 of this subchapter, and unless the context otherwise requires, in this part 19:

Harass means to disturb, worry, molest, rally, concentrate, harry, chase, drive, herd, or torment.

19.11 General prohibitions.

(a) Except as otherwise authorized by the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 as amended, no person shall:

(1) While airborne in any aircraft shoot or attempt to shoot for the purpose of capturing or killing any wildlife;

(2) Use an aircraft to harass any wildlife; or

(3) Knowingly participate in using an aircraft whether in the aircraft or on the ground for any purpose referred to in paragraph (a) (1) or (2) of this section.

(b) The acts prohibited in this section include, but are not limited to, any person who:

(1) Pilots or assists in the operation of an aircraft from which another person shoots or shoots at wildlife while airborne, or

(2) While on the ground takes or attempts to take any wildlife by means, aid, or use of an aircraft.

19.12 Exceptions to general prohibitions.

The prohibitions of the preceding section shall not apply to any person who:

(1) Is acting within the scope of his official duties as an employee or authorized agent of a State or the United States to administer or protect or aid in the administration or protection of land, water, wildlife, livestock, domesticated animals, human life or crops; or

(2) Is acting within the limitations of a permit referred to in § 19.21 or § 19.31 of this part.

19.21 Limitation on Federal permits.

No Federal permits will be issued to authorize any person to hunt, shoot, or harass any wildlife from an aircraft, except for Federal permits to scare or herd migratory birds referred to in § 21.100 of this subchapter.

19.31 State permits.

(a) Except as provided in § 19.3, States may issue permits to persons to engage in airborne hunting or harassing of wildlife for purposes of administering or protecting land, water, wildlife, livestock, domestic animals, human life or crops. States may not issue permits for the purpose of sport hunting.

(b) Upon issuance of a permit by a State to a person pursuant to this section, the issuing authority will provide immediate notification to the Special Agent in Charge having jurisdiction according to § 10.22.

19.32 Annual reporting requirements.

(a) Any State issuing permits to persons to engage in airborne hunting or harassing of wildlife or any State whose employees or agents participate in airborne hunting or harassing of wildlife for purposes of administering or protecting land, water, wildlife, livestock, domestic animals, human life or crops, shall file with the Director, an annual report on or before July 1 for the preceding calendar year ending December 31.

(b) The annual report required by this section shall contain the following information as to each such permit issued:

(1) The name and address of each person to whom a permit was issued.

(2) Permit number and inclusive dates during which permit was valid.

(3) The aircraft number of the aircraft used and the location where such aircraft was based.

(4) Common name and number of the wildlife for which authorization to take was given and a description of the area from which the wildlife were authorized to be taken.

(5) The purpose for which the permit was issued, specifically identifying whether the permit was issued to protect land, water, wildlife, livestock, domestic animals, crops, or human life.

(6) The common name and number of wildlife taken by permittees and State employees or agents.

(c) A compilation of all annual reports required by this section shall be made by the Director and furnished to any State filing such annual report.

§46301. Civil penalties

(a) General Penalty. – (1) A person is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $25,000 (or $1,100 if the person is an individual or small business concern) for violating—

(A) chapter 401 (except sections 40103(a) and (d), 40105, 40116, and 40117), chapter 411, chapter 413 (except sections 41307 and 41310(b)–(f)), chapter 415 (except sections 41502, 41505, and 41507–41509), chapter 417 (except sections 41703, 41704, 41710, 41713, and 41714), chapter 419, subchapter II or III of chapter 421, chapter 441 (except section 44109), section 44502(b) or (c), chapter 447 (except sections 44717 and 44719–44723), chapter 449 (except sections 44902, 44903(d), 44904, 44907(a)–(d)(1)(A) and (d)(1)(C)–(f), and 44908), section 47107(b) (including any assurance made under such section), or section 47133 of this title;

(B) a regulation prescribed or order issued under any provision to which clause (A) of this paragraph applies;

(C) any term of a certificate or permit issued under section 41102, 41103, or 41302 of this title; or

(D) a regulation of the United States Postal Service under this part.

(2) A separate violation occurs under this subsection for each day the violation (other than a violation of section 41719) continues or, if applicable, for each flight involving the violation (other than a violation of section 41719).

(3) Penalty for diversion of aviation revenues.—The amount of a civil penalty assessed under this section for a violation of section 47107(b) of this title (or any assurance made under such section) or section 47133 of this title may be increased above the otherwise applicable maximum amount under this section to an amount not to exceed 3 times the amount of revenues that are used in violation of such section.

(4) Aviation security violations.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of this subsection, the maximum civil penalty for violating chapter 449 shall be $10,000; except that the maximum civil penalty shall be $25,000 in the case of a person operating an aircraft for the transportation of passengers or property for compensation (except an individual serving as an airman).

(5) Penalties applicable to individuals and small business concerns.—

(A) An individual (except an airman serving as an airman) or small business concern is liable to the Government for a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for violating—

(i) chapter 401 (except sections 40103(a) and (d), 40105, 40106(b), 40116, and 40117), section 44502 (b) or (c), chapter 447 (except sections 44717–44723), chapter 449 (except sections 44902, 44903(d), 44904, and 44907–44909), or section 46314(a) of this title; or

(ii) a regulation prescribed or order issued under any provision to which clause (i) applies.

(B) A civil penalty of not more than $10,000 may be imposed for each violation under paragraph (1) committed by an individual or small business concern related to—

(i) the transportation of hazardous material;

(ii) the registration or recordation under chapter 441 of an aircraft not used to provide air transportation;

(iii) a violation of section 44718(d), relating to the limitation on construction or establishment of landfills;

(iv) a violation of section 44725, relating to the safe disposal of life-limited aircraft parts; or

(v) a violation of section 40127 or section 41705, relating to discrimination.

(C) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the maximum civil penalty for a violation of section 41719 committed by an individual or small business concern shall be $5,000 instead of $1,000.

(D) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the maximum civil penalty for a violation of section 41712 (including a regulation prescribed or order issued under such section) or any other regulation prescribed by the Secretary by an individual or small business concern that is intended to afford consumer protection to commercial air transportation passengers shall be $2,500 for each violation.

(6) Failure To Collect Airport Security Badges.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1), any employer (other than a governmental entity or airport operator) who employs an employee to whom an airport security badge or other identifier used to obtain access to a secure area of an airport is issued before, on, or after the date of enactment of this paragraph and who does not collect or make reasonable efforts to collect such badge from the employee on the date that the employment of the employee is terminated and does not notify the operator of the airport of such termination within 24 hours of the date of such termination shall be liable to the Government for a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000.

(b) Smoke Alarm Device Penalty.—(1) A passenger may not tamper with, disable, or destroy a smoke alarm device located in a lavatory on an aircraft providing air transportation or intrastate air transportation.

(2) An individual violating this subsection is liable to the Government for a civil penalty of not more than $2,000.

(c) Procedural Requirements.—(1) The Secretary of Transportation may impose a civil penalty for the following violations only after notice and an opportunity for a hearing:

(A) a violation of subsection (b) of this section or chapter 411, chapter 413 (except sections 41307 and 41310(b)–(f)), chapter 415 (except sections 41502, 41505, and 41507–41509), chapter 417 (except sections 41703, 41704, 41710, 41713, and 41714), chapter 419, subchapter II of chapter 421, or section 44909 of this title.

(B) a violation of a regulation prescribed or order issued under any provision to which clause (A) of this paragraph applies.

(C) a violation of any term of a certificate or permit issued under section 41102, 41103, or 41302 of this title.

(D) a violation under subsection (a)(1) of this section related to the transportation of hazardous material.

(2) The Secretary shall give written notice of the finding of a violation and the civil penalty under paragraph (1) of this subsection.

(d) Administrative Imposition of Penalties.—(1) In this subsection—

(A) “flight engineer” means an individual who holds a flight engineer certificate issued under part 63 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.

(B) “mechanic” means an individual who holds a mechanic certificate issued under part 65 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.

(C) “pilot” means an individual who holds a pilot certificate issued under part 61 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.

(D) “repairman” means an individual who holds a repairman certificate issued under part 65 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.

(2) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may impose a civil penalty for a violation of chapter 401 (except sections 40103(a) and (d), 40105, 40106(b), 40116, and 40117), chapter 441 (except section 44109), section 44502(b) or (c), chapter 447 (except sections 44717 and 44719–44723) or section 46301(b), 46302 (for a violation relating to section 46504), 46318, or 47107(b) (as further defined by the Secretary under section 47107(l) and including any assurance made under section 47107(b)) of this title or a regulation prescribed or order issued under any of those provisions. The Secretary of Homeland Security may impose a civil penalty for a violation of chapter 449 (except sections 44902, 44903(d), 44907(a)–(d)(1)(A), 44907(d)(1)(C)–(f), 44908, and 44909), 46302 (except for a violation relating to section 46504), 46303, or a regulation prescribed or order issued under such chapter 449. The Secretary of Homeland Security or Administrator shall give written notice of the finding of a violation and the penalty.

(3) In a civil action to collect a civil penalty imposed by the Secretary of Homeland Security or Administrator under this subsection, the issues of liability and the amount of the penalty may not be reexamined.

(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (2) of this subsection, the district courts of the United States have exclusive jurisdiction of a civil action involving a penalty the Secretary of Homeland Security or Administrator initiates if—

(A) the amount in controversy is more than—

(i) $50,000 if the violation was committed by any person before the date of enactment of the Vision 100—Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act;

(ii) $400,000 if the violation was committed by a person other than an individual or small business concern on or after that date; or

(iii) $50,000 if the violation was committed by an individual or small business concern on or after that date;

(B) the action is in rem or another action in rem based on the same violation has been brought;

(C) the action involves an aircraft subject to a lien that has been seized by the Government; or

(D) another action has been brought for an injunction based on the same violation.

(5)(A) The Administrator may issue an order imposing a penalty under this subsection against an individual acting as a pilot, flight engineer, mechanic, or repairman only after advising the individual of the charges or any reason the Administrator relied on for the proposed penalty and providing the individual an opportunity to answer the charges and be heard about why the order shall not be issued.

(B) An individual acting as a pilot, flight engineer, mechanic, or repairman may appeal an order imposing a penalty under this subsection to the National Transportation Safety Board. After notice and an opportunity for a hearing on the record, the Board shall affirm, modify, or reverse the order. The Board may modify a civil penalty imposed to a suspension or revocation of a certificate.

(C) When conducting a hearing under this paragraph, the Board is not bound by findings of fact of the Administrator but is bound by all validly adopted interpretations of laws and regulations the Administrator carries out and of written agency policy guidance available to the public related to sanctions to be imposed under this section unless the Board finds an interpretation is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not according to law.

(D) When an individual files an appeal with the Board under this paragraph, the order of the Administrator is stayed.

(6) An individual substantially affected by an order of the Board under paragraph (5) of this subsection, or the Administrator when the Administrator decides that an order of the Board under paragraph (5) will have a significant adverse impact on carrying out this part, may obtain judicial review of the order under section 46110 of this title. The Administrator shall be made a party to the judicial review proceedings. Findings of fact of the Board are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence.

(7)(A) The Administrator may impose a penalty on a person (except an individual acting as a pilot, flight engineer, mechanic, or repairman) only after notice and an opportunity for a hearing on the record.

(B) In an appeal from a decision of an administrative law judge as the result of a hearing under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, the Administrator shall consider only whether—

(i) each finding of fact is supported by a preponderance of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence;

(ii) each conclusion of law is made according to applicable law, precedent, and public policy; and

(iii) the judge committed a prejudicial error that supports the appeal.

(C) Except for good cause, a civil action involving a penalty under this paragraph may not be initiated later than 2 years after the violation occurs.

(D) In the case of a violation of section 47107(b) of this title or any assurance made under such section—

(i) a civil penalty shall not be assessed against an individual;

(ii) a civil penalty may be compromised as provided under subsection (f); and

(iii) judicial review of any order assessing a civil penalty may be obtained only pursuant to section 46110 of this title.

(8) The maximum civil penalty the Under Secretary, Administrator, or Board may impose under this subsection is—

(A) $50,000 if the violation was committed by any person before the date of enactment of the Vision 100—Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act;

(B) $400,000 if the violation was committed by a person other than an individual or small business concern on or after that date; or

(C) $50,000 if the violation was committed by an individual or small business concern on or after that date.

(9) This subsection applies only to a violation occurring after August 25, 1992.

(e) Penalty Considerations.—In determining the amount of a civil penalty under subsection (a)(3) of this section related to transportation of hazardous material, the Secretary shall consider—

(1) the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation;

(2) with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior violations, the ability to pay, and any effect on the ability to continue doing business; and

(3) other matters that justice requires.

(f) Compromise and Setoff.—(1)(A) The Secretary may compromise the amount of a civil penalty imposed for violating—

(i) chapter 401 (except sections 40103(a) and (d), 40105, 40116, and 40117), chapter 441 (except section 44109), section 44502(b) or (c), chapter 447 (except sections 44717 and 44719–44723), or chapter 449 (except sections 44902, 44903(d), 44904, 44907(a)–(d)(1)(A) and (d)(1)(C)–(f), 44908, and 44909) of this title; or

(ii) a regulation prescribed or order issued under any provision to which clause (i) of this subparagraph applies.

(B) The Postal Service may compromise the amount of a civil penalty imposed under subsection (a)(1)(D) of this section.

(2) The Government may deduct the amount of a civil penalty imposed or compromised under this subsection from amounts it owes the person liable for the penalty.

(g) Judicial Review.—An order of the Secretary or the Administrator imposing a civil penalty may be reviewed judicially only under section 46110 of this title.

(h) Non application.—(1) This section does not apply to the following when performing official duties:

(A) a member of the armed forces of the United States.

(B) a civilian employee of the Department of Defense subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

(2) The appropriate military authority is responsible for taking necessary disciplinary action and submitting to the Secretary (or the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security with respect to security duties and powers designated to be carried out by the Under Secretary or the Administrator with respect to aviation safety duties and powers designated to be carried out by the Administrator) a timely report on action taken.

(i) Small Business Concern Defined.—In this section, the term “small business concern” has the meaning given that term in section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632).

49 USC § 46320

Interference with wildfire suppression, law enforcement, or emergency response effort by operation of unmanned aircraft

(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (b), an individual who operates an unmanned aircraft and in so doing knowingly or recklessly interferes with a wildfire suppression, law enforcement, or emergency response effort is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $20,000.

(b) EXCEPTIONS.—This section does not apply to the operation of an unmanned aircraft conducted by a unit or agency of the United States Government or of a State, tribal, or local government (including any individual conducting such operation pursuant to a contract or other agreement entered into with the unit or agency) for the purpose of protecting the public safety and welfare, including firefighting, law enforcement, or emergency response.

(c) COMPROMISE AND SETOFF.—

(1) COMPROMISE.—The United States Government may compromise the amount of a civil penalty imposed under this section.

(2) SETOFF.—The United States Government may deduct the amount of a civil penalty imposed or compromised under this section from the amounts the Government owes the person liable for the penalty.

(d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following definitions apply:

(1) WILDFIRE.—The term ‘‘wildfire’’ has the meaning given that term in section 2 of the Emergency Wildfire Suppression Act (42 U.S.C. 1856m).

(2) WILDFIRE SUPPRESSION.—The term ‘‘wildfire suppression’’ means an effort to contain, extinguish, or suppress a wildfire.

 

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 fromland 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

 

 

UAS Litigation

Pennsylvania Game Commission v. Joshua T. Wingenroth (2024)

With a drone pilot being found guilty of helping a hunter recover a wounded deer, Pennsylvania legislators are pondering if the regulations should be changed.

Joshua T. Wingenroth, 35, of Downingtown, was found guilty of an incident on Dec. 6 at Welsh Mountain Nature Reserve in Lancaster County.

The Pennsylvania Game Commission accused him of using a drone to help recover a deer shot by another hunter. The agency believes he disturbed an antlered white-tailed deer while operating his drone at night with a light that cast on the ground.

After a summary trial with Magisterial District Judge Raymond S. Sheller in Gordonville, Wingenroth was found guilty for citations of disturbing game or wildlife, restrictions on recreational spotlighting and two citations for using unlawful devices and methods.

Travis Lau, communications director for the Pennsylvania Game Commission, said they were seeking the minimum amount and that would total around $1,500. Wingenroth is the first person charged in Pennsylvania with using this emerging technology.

The Game Commission filed four citations against Joshua Wingenroth of Downingtown for an incident that occurred Dec. 6 at the Welsh Mountain Nature Preserve in Lancaster County.

Wingenroth was charged with two counts of unlawful devices and methods and one count each of disturbance of game and wildlife and restrictions on recreational spotlighting. The charges combined carry a maximum of $2,500 in fines and up to three months in jail.

Wingenroth’s business, Wingy Drone Services, is listed on the Drone Deer Recovery website. Mike Yoder, who owns the Ohio-based Drone Deer Recovery, said Wingenroth isn’t associated with his business but lists his name on the website the same as other independent drone operators.

USA v. Matthew R. Hebert (2024) 

On March 14, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland sentenced Matthew Hebert to 12 months of probation, a $500 fine, and a $25 assessment. On the same date, Hebert pleaded guilty to knowingly or willfully violating United States National Defense Airspace.

According to court documents, Hebert unlawfully operated a drone during the National Football League’s AFC Championship Game on January 28, 2024. Due to the drone’s incursion, the game was temporarily suspended.

DOT-OIG conducted this investigation with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Maryland State Police, with substantial assistance from the Federal Aviation Administration.

360 Virtual Drone Services LLC v. Ritter, No. 23-1472 (4th Cir. 2024)

The case involves 360 Virtual Drone Services LLC and its owner, Michael Jones, who sought to provide customers with aerial maps and 3D digital models containing measurable data. However, the North Carolina Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors argued that doing so would constitute engaging in the practice of land surveying without a license, in violation of the North Carolina Engineering and Land Surveying Act. Jones and his company sued the Board, arguing that the restriction on their ability to offer these services without first obtaining a surveyor’s license violates their First Amendment rights.

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Board. The court concluded that Jones had standing to challenge the statute based on his desire to create “two-dimensional and three-dimensional maps with geospatial data.” It also concluded that the Engineering and Land Surveying Act implicated the First Amendment. However, it found that the Act constituted “a generally applicable licensing regime that restricts the practice of surveying to those licensed” and primarily regulated conduct rather than speech, such that intermediate scrutiny applied. Finally, the court concluded that the Act survived intermediate scrutiny.

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court concluded that the Act, as applied to the plaintiffs, was a regulation of professional conduct that only incidentally impacts speech. Therefore, it applied a more relaxed form of intermediate scrutiny that mandates only that the restriction be “sufficiently drawn” to protect a substantial state interest. The court found that the Act met this standard and therefore did not violate the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.

MIKE YODER, DRONE DEER RECOVERY MEDIA, INC., and JEREMY FUNKE v. SHANNON LOTT, in her official capacity as Acting Director of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (2023)

US District Court for the Western District of Michigan Southern Division

Mr. Yoder is a hunter, entrepreneur, and drone enthusiast. His company, Drone Deer Recovery, solves one of hunting’s most frustrating problems: recovering a downed deer that has expired in a location unknown to the hunter. Drone Deer Recovery utilizes drones—unmanned aerial vehicles—to find downed game. Through Drone Deer Recovery’s website, a hunter can contact a local affiliate “drone operator” to locate their lost deer. Using infrared cameras, Drone Deer Recovery’s drones locate downed deer by searching for static heat signatures. Drone Deer Recovery’s drones then create a “location pin” with the deer’s location coordinates and relay that tag to the hunter. Drone Deer Recovery’s drone service is non-intrusive—mostly operating at night, 400-feet in the sky—and more effective and reliable than tracking dogs or trail cameras.

DNR officials have advised Drone Deer Recovery that it is unlawful under state law to use drones in any manner related to hunting. This includes locating a deer after it has been shot. On or around January 3, 2023, a potential Drone Deer Recovery operator received an email from a DNR enforcement official informing him that using drones to locate downed deer is illegal in Michigan. On or around March 1, 2023, a different potential Drone Deer Recovery operator asked DNR’s Wildlife Division about the legality of using drones to collect downed deer. The Wildlife Division replied that the use of drones related to locating wildlife in any manner is illegal.

Wherefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court enter judgment against Defendant as follows:

1. A declaration that the DNR’s interpretation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.40111c, as applied to Plaintiffs, violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;

2. A permanent injunction restraining Defendant and Defendant’s officers, agents, affiliates, servants, successors, employees, and all other persons in active concert or participation with Defendant from enforcing Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.40111c against Plaintiffs in a manner that prevents the creation, dissemination, and receipt of certain information;

3. their rights;

4. Judgment for Plaintiffs and against Defendant for the deprivation of An award of Plaintiffs’ costs and attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and

5. Any such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Unfortunately, in June 2024, the district court held that Michigan’s Drone Statute does not implicate the clients’ First Amendment rights. 

XIZMO Media Productions LLC v. City of New York (2022)

Xizmo filed a complaint in the Eastern District of New York against the City of New York challenging the constitutionality of a law that effectively banned drones in the city. According to the complaint, Section 10-126(c) of the New York City Avigation Law (hereinafter, the UAV Ban) “effectively imposes a complete ban on the operation of unmanned aerial vehicles (‘UAV(s)’ or ‘drones’) within the limits of New York City.” Xizmo asserted that it “maintains a film support business in New York City, which would use drones for purposes of filming pursuant to permits and/or waivers granted by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), were it not for conflicting provisions of the Avigation Law, which fail to recognize federally granted waivers and permits.” The plaintiff claimed that it relies on “the nationally uniform regulation of U.S. aerospace to engage in interstate commerce.” In particular, the plaintiff claimed that the UAV ban “does not provide a permitting process for commercial UAV operation nor does it purport to recognize any permits or waivers issued by the Federal Aviation Administration for federally licensed professionals to operate such vehicles.” Thus, Xizmo contended that this section of the law essentially bans UAVs in New York City. As further evidence, the plaintiff pointed to the official website for the City of New York, which states, “Call 911 to report a drone use in New York City. It is illegal to fly them (drones) in New York City.” The plaintiff noted that, nationally, the FAA is responsible for aviation-related regulation and pointed to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, which has a section that “directed the FAA to develop a plan for ‘the safe integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace.’ ”

Citing precedent, Xizmo alleged that under Santoriello, the U.S. government has “exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States” and the intent of the Federal Aviation Act “was to preserve the rights of the citizens of the United States and set nation-wide standards for the use of the navigable airspace” and the fact that the defendant in the suit had a waiver allowed the court to declare the law in question unconstitutional because of its prohibitions not regulations. In Singer v. City of Newton, the court similarly found that “a municipal UAV ordinance was conflict preempted.”

The plaintiff noted that it has a remote pilot certification, various FAA waivers, and an FAA permit to operate small UAVs “in class B airspace under the jurisdiction of New York’s Kennedy Airport Control and LaGuardia Airport Traffic Control.” However, despite these federal permissions, Xizmo allegedly has had its aerial productions shut down by the police on multiple occasions, purportedly costing it hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage. Additionally, the plaintiff proffered that the UAV Ban is preempted by federal law. The causes of action are preemption and violation of the First Amendment. Xizmo is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and to enjoin further enforcement of the UAV Ban where the FAA has authorized it, among other relief.

NPPA v. McCraw (2022)

A federal judge in the US District Court, Austin Division, overturned the state of Texas’ stringent drone restrictions in March 2022, holding that it was an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. In his ruling, District Judge Robert Pitman enjoined the Texas Department of Public Safety and the Texas Highway Patrol from enforcing Chapter 423 of the Texas Government Code. The National Press Photographers Association brought the lawsuit in 2019 challenging the law after members experienced problems using drones for news gathering in the state. When the law was first proposed in 2013, NPPA urged the legislature to reject the bill which amounted to a broad ban on drone use for a wide range of purposes that included journalism.

National Press v. McCraw, No. 22-50337 (5th Cir. 2023)

Chapter 423 of the Texas Government Code governs the operation of unmanned aerial vehicles—drones—in Texas airspace.

In this case, Plaintiffs claimed a sweeping First Amendment right to use unmanned aerial drones to film private individuals and property without their consent. They also assert a constitutional right to fly drones at low altitudes over critical infrastructure facilities like prisons and large sports venues.

The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment in Defendants’ favor on the constitutional claims.

The court explained that it disagreed with Plaintiffs claim that a sweeping First Amendment right to use unmanned aerial drones to film private individuals and property without their consent. The court explained that though it does not foreclose any as-applied constitutional defenses to any hypothetical future prosecutions under the drone laws, we hold that these facial challenges fail. The court also rejected Plaintiffs’ cross-appeal claiming that federal regulations occupy the entire field of drone regulation.

On this issue, the court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the field-preemption claim. The court explained that federal law expressly contemplates concurrent non-federal regulation of drones, especially where privacy and critical infrastructure are concerned.

RaceDayQuads, LLC v. FAA (2022)

US Court case heard in the DC Federal Court of Appeals in which the online store attempted to challenge the constitutionality and legality of the FAA’s Remote ID rule and decision to require that all UAS in US airspace to continuously transmit the location of both the drone and its operator during all operations. The suit was intended to “save the drone industry” including drone racing by using FPV drones, but it ultimately failed as the DC Appeals Court sided with the FAA’s arguments.

RaceDayQuads LLC v. FAA. This suit challenged the Drone Remote Identification Regulations as infringing upon the Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy, and government surveillance of the operator’s use, but was denied by the DC Circuit (July 29, 2022.) Remote identification is described as the “digital license plate” for remotely piloted aircraft, compliance mandate starting September 16, 2023. The final rule established a new Part 89 in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations requiring broadcasting of location. Remote ID has been determined to be necessary to maintain aviation safety and security issues regarding operations in the NAS. Broadcasts are mandatory for remote ID messages directly from the UA via radio frequency broadcast (likely Wi-Fi or Bluetooth technology) connecting the UAS serial number or session ID with the registration database will be limited to the FAA and can be made available to authorized law enforcement and national security personnel upon request. Most aircraft must be produced as Standard Remote ID Unmanned Aircraft and have either an internal signal broadcasting the pilot’s location, plus the drone’s latitude, longitude, and heading, or an attached broadcast module sending the same data. Anyone with a smartphone in the vicinity of the launch point will be able to know the pilot’s location while flying. Remote ID is expected to increase safety, transparency and responsibility of pilots because a drone’s speed, heading, and altitude will be accessible at all times while it is in the air and will enable more complex operations, including Operations Over People and Beyond-Visual-Line-of-Sight, to be made without the pilot having to secure a waiver.

LEADERS OF A BEAUTIFUL STRUGGLE; ERRICKA BRIDGEFORD; KEVIN JAMES, v. BALTIMORE POLICE DEPARTMENT; MICHAEL S. HARRISON, in his official capacity as Baltimore Police Commissioner (2022)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and ACLU of Maryland filed a lawsuit against the Baltimore Police Department (BPD) to challenge the constitutionality of deploying a wide-area aerial surveillance program that will put virtually all Baltimore residents under constant, aerial surveillance.

The Plaintiffs in this suit reached a strong settlement with the Baltimore Police Department (BPD) following the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling finding the BPD’s pilot aerial surveillance program unconstitutional. The settlement terms block the city from implementing a similar surveillance program in the future, and prohibit the BPD from accessing data collected through the program, except in connection with existing prosecutions or to provide discovery to criminal defendants. The settlement also ensures that the BPD will destroy its collected records from the program, consistent with the rights of criminal defendants to obtain discovery about the surveillance.

In the lawsuit, the ACLU argues this surveillance system presents a threat to our individual right to privacy and free association under the First and Fourth Amendments, respectively. The legal team is seeking an injunction blocking the operation of this aerial surveillance program. The suit was filed on behalf of Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle, grassroots think tank that advances the public policy interests of Black people in Baltimore, Erricka Bridgeford, co-founder of the Baltimore Ceasefire 365 project, and Kevin James, a community organizer and hip-hop musician.

The BPD has contracted with a private company, Persistent Surveillance Systems (PSS), to pilot this “Aerial Investigation Research” program. PSS’ high-resolution, camera-equipped planes will fly over the entire city of Baltimore at least 40 hours a week. The cameras create a slow frame rate video record of everywhere that anyone goes, allowing police to retroactively track a person’s movements from any place or time. The pilot program is set to begin in April 2020 for a trial period of 180 days.

This aerial surveillance technology can be easily combined with the BPD’s existing ground cameras, license plate readers, and other sensors to tie data together and provide highly detailed information about residents’ identities and activities. The BPD has stated the program’s intended purpose is to aid in solving criminal investigations, however, government officials have a history of secretly using similar technology for other purposes — including to surveil Black Lives Matter protests in Baltimore in recent years.

Long Lake Township v. Maxon (2021)

In a Michigan Court of Appeals case before them on remand from Michigan Supreme Court the court had to revisit their decision to exclude evidence gathered by UAS. In the original action, Todd and Heather Maxon appealed a trial court order denying their motion to suppress aerial photographs taken by Long Lake Township using a drone without the Maxons’ permission, a warrant, or any other legal authorization. The township relied on these photos to support a civil action against the Maxons for violating a zoning ordinance, creating a nuisance, and breaching a previous settlement agreement. Long Lake Twp v Maxon, 336 Mich App 521, 524-525; 970 NW2d 893 (2021) (Long Lake I). This Court of Appeals determined that the use of the drone violated the Fourth Amendment and reversed the trial court order denying the Maxons’ motion to suppress. The Michigan Supreme Court vacated their previous opinion and remanded to this Court “to address the additional issue of whether the exclusionary rule applies to this dispute.” Long Lake Twp v Maxon, ___ Mich ___; 973 NW2d 615 (2022) (Long Lake II). The exclusionary rule does not apply in this civil matter. Accordingly, even if the township violated the Maxons’ constitutional rights, suppression was not supported. They affirmed the lower court’s order.

LONG LAKE TOWNSHIP v MAXON (2024)

Long Lake Township brought an action in the Grand Traverse Circuit Court against Todd and Heather Maxon, alleging that the Maxons were keeping junk cars on their property in violation of a zoning ordinance, a nuisance law, and a 2008 settlement agreement. Neighboring property owners had notified the township of the alleged violations. Because most of the Maxons’ property could not be seen from the street, the township hired a drone operator to take aerial photographs and video of the Maxons’ property. The photographs and video—which were taken without the Maxons’ permission and without a warrant—allegedly showed that the dimensions of their junkyard had increased, contrary to the terms of the settlement agreement. The Maxons moved to suppress the aerial photographs and all other evidence obtained by the township from use of the drone, asserting that the search was illegal under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The court, Thomas G. Power, J., denied the Maxons’ motion, reasoning that the drone surveillance did not constitute a search. The Court of Appeals granted the Maxons’ application for leave to appeal. In a split decision, the Court of Appeals, J ANSEN , P.J., and RONAYNE KRAUSE, J. (FORT HOOD, J., dissenting), reversed, holding that the targeted drone surveillance of the Maxons’ property violated the Fourth Amendment because it intruded into an area where the Maxons had a reasonable expectation of privacy and because the township obtained the photographs without a warrant and no traditional exception to the warrant requirement applied.336 Mich App 521 (2021) (Long Lake I).
The township sought leave to appeal in the Supreme Court, which ordered oral argument on whether to grant the township’s application for leave to appeal or take other action.
509 Mich 871 (2022).
The Supreme Court thereafter stayed the briefing deadlines and directed the parties to file supplemental briefs regarding whether the exclusionary rule applied to the facts of this case.
509 Mich 921 (2022).
After the supplemental briefs were received, the Supreme Court vacated its earlier order directing the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the application, and in lieu of granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court vacated the Long Lake I decision and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of whether the exclusionary rule applied to the facts of this case.
509 Mich 981 (2022).
In a split decision on remand, the Court of Appeals, GLEICHER , C.J., and RONAYNE KRAUSE, J. (J ANSEN , P.J., dissenting), assumed that the township’s use of a drone to acquire photographs of defendants’ property violated the Fourth Amendment. 343 Mich 321 (2022).
Applying the balancing test set forth in United States v Janis, 428 US 433 (1976), to the facts of this case—i.e., weighing the primary purpose of the rule, which is to deter future unlawful police conduct, against the societal costs imposed by the exclusion—the Court of Appeals concluded that the cost of suppressing the evidence (i.e., the inability of the township to enforce its zoning regulations) would outweigh any deterrence benefits. After reaching that conclusion, the Court of Appeals held that the exclusionary rule did not apply and that the photographs and video could not be suppressed regardless of whether the township unreasonably searched the Maxons’ property; for that reason, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s orders. The Maxons sought leaveto appeal, and the Supreme Court ordered and heard oral argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. 511 Mich 963 (2023).

Michigan Coalition of Drone Operators v. Genesee County (2020)

On February 10, 2020, the Honorable Judge Joseph Farah handed down a ruling in favor of the Michigan Coalition of Drone Operators (MCDO) after Genesee County, in Flint, tried to establish an ordinance banning drones in their parks. The three-month-long legal battle was ignited after R. Jason Harrison was arrested in December 2018 for flying legally in a park. Harrison’s drone and accessories were confiscated and he was issued a misdemeanor. Even though the ticket was dropped, Harrison sought the counsel of Dean Greenblatt, an aviation attorney licensed in both Michigan and Florida. Greenblatt had the following to say to DPReview regarding the situation:

‘I understand that this case is the first to attempt enforcement of statewide preemption statutes regarding drones. It is the first legal challenge in Michigan, and presumably the first legal challenge to a preemption statute anywhere in the country.’

What happened to Harrison isn’t unusual for remote pilots operating in a majority of states across the US. Thirty three of them allow local governments to establish their own laws regarding drone use.

Michigan Coalition of Drone Operators v. Genesee County. 19-113058-CZ (Mich. Cir. Ct. 2020). Upheld in appellate court 2022, this affirmed a lower court’s ruling that Ottawa County exceeded its authority when it tried to ban the use of drones in county parks. Michigan state law preempts local governments from enacting policies regulating drone usage, essentially allowing drone pilots to fly as long as they are compliant with federal law. By limiting the conditions in which pilots could operate their drones, Ottawa County violated Michigan’s Unmanned Aircraft Systems Act.

Michigan Coalition of Drone Operators v. Ottawa County (2022)

On November 17, 2022, Michigan Coalition of Drone Operators won their appeal in Michigan’s Court of Appeals, when they appeals an order granting declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction, challenging as preempted by state law county ordinances prohibiting the operation of UAS.

Singer v. City of Newton (2017)

Federal District Court of Massachusetts struck down four key portions of a 2016 municipal drone ordinance that effectively banned drones as being unconstitutional. The lawsuit, filed in January 2017 by a local doctor, involved the question of how much power localities had over the airspace, which is FAA territory! The City of Newton law, passed in December 2016, banned drone flights over private property at or below 400 feet without the property owner’s permission. The law also required that all drones be registered with the city and that drones not overfly schools, city property, or sporting events without specific permission.

In the District Court of Massachusetts, Singer sued the city to challenge its ordinance sections which “require[d] all owners of pilotless aircraft [to] register their pilotless aircraft with Newton, and also prohibit operation of pilotless aircraft out of the operator’s line of sight or in certain areas without a permit or express permission.” In the court’s review of the Newton Ordinances § 20–64(b), it points out that the FAA indicated its intent to be the exclusive regulatory authority for the registration of pilotless aircraft…citing the 2015 FAA Fact Sheet that says no state or local government may impose an additional registration requirement on the operation of UAS in navigable airspace without first obtaining FAA approval (City of Newton, 284 F. Supp. 3d 125. 148 Id. at p. 127). The city ordinance stated in part: “Purpose: The use of pilotless aircraft is an increasingly popular pastime as well as a learning tool. It is important to allow beneficial uses of these devices while also protecting the privacy of residents throughout the City. In order to prevent nuisances and other disturbances to the enjoyment of both public and private space, regulation of pilotless aircraft is required. The following section is intended to promote the public safety and welfare of the City and its residents. In furtherance of its stated purpose, this section is intended to be read and interpreted in harmony with all relevant rules and regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration, and any other federal, state, and local laws and regulations (City of Newton, 284 F. Supp. 3d at 131), Newton Massachusetts Revised Ordinances ch. 20, § 64(B) (Section (b) states: “Owners of all pilotless aircraft shall register their pilotless aircraft with the City Clerk’s Office, either individually or as a member of a club . . .”). The court highlighted that “Congress [gave] the FAA the responsibility of regulating the use of airspace for aircraft navigation and to protect individuals and property on the ground . . ..and specifically directed the FAA to integrate drones into the national airspace system” (City of Newton, 284 F. Supp. 3d at 132). It explained that the FAA used this power to require that a remote pilot must command the flight of the uncrewed aircraft, or, a visual observer must see the uncrewed aircraft through the duration of the flight, and “allow waiver of the visual observer rule.” Because of this, the Court held that the subsection was preempted under the reasoning that “the Ordinance limits the methods of piloting a drone beyond which the FAA has already designated, while also reaching into navigable space . . . intervening in the FAA’s careful regulation of aircraft safety cannot stand” (City of Newton, 284 F. Supp. 3d at p. 133).

Taylor v Huerta (2017)

Taylor v Huerta 856 F.3d 1089 (D.C. Cir. 2017) addressed the FAA’s authority over uncrewed aircraft and how state laws and local ordinances are affected by federal preemption. The Court held that the Registration Rule was unlawful as applied to model aircraft. Jan 2016 – FAA Sued in Federal Court over Drone Registration Rules – Taylor

Boggs v. Merideth (2017)

Boggs v. Merideth, 2017 WL 1088093 (W.D. Ky. 2017). Federal court held it lacked the authority to rule on what it said were state law issues of UAS-related privacy and property rights in low-altitude airspace. March 2017 – Boggs v. Meredith

Huerta v. Haughwout (2016)

Huerta v. Haughwout, 2016 WL 3919799 D. Conn. 2016. Man who built gun drone, flamethrower drone argues FAA can’t regulate him – June 2016. The court questioned both the FAA’s and Congress’s authority to regulate all low-altitude UAS operations, particularly in the airspace over private property.

Huerta v. Pirker (2014)

Huerta v. Pirker WL 8095629, at p. 5. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) upheld an FAA order designating UAS as definitionally the same as crewed aircraft, stating that “[w]e must look no further than the clear, unambiguous plain language of 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(6) and 14 C.F.R. § 1.1: an ‘aircraft’ is any ‘device’ ‘used for flight in the air.’ This definition includes any aircraft, crewed or uncrewed, large or small.”

Goodspeed Airport LLC v. E. Haddam Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Comm’n (2011)

Goodspeed Airport LLC v. E. Haddam Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Comm’n, 634 F.3d pp. 206, 210. “Congress intended to occupy the field of air safety.” The 2nd Circuit highlights that “[i]n occupying the field of air safety, Congress did not intend to preempt the operation of state statutes and regulations like the ones at issue here.” The Court ruled that “[a]lthough … Congress has indicated its intent to occupy the entire field of aviation safety, the generally applicable state laws and regulations imposing permit requirements on land use challenged here do not, on the facts before us, invade that preempted field. This ruling shows that permit requirements related to land use do not necessarily touch aviation safety, and therefore could fall outside of the field of Congressional preemption. Goodspeed is important because it provides states with the persuasive authority to make a case that there are powers available to them to oversee the regulations of uncrewed aircraft, notwithstanding implied preemption under the Federal Aviation Act.

US Airways, Inc. v. O’Donnell (2010)

US Airways, Inc. v. O’Donnell, 627 F.3d 1318, 1326. “… federal regulation occupies the field of aviation safety to the exclusion of state regulations.”

Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines (2007)

Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines, 508 F.3d 464, 473. “…federal law occupies the entire field of aviation safety.” “The purpose, history, and language of the FAA [Act] lead us to conclude that Congress intended to have a single, uniform system for regulating aviation safety. The catalytic events leading to the enactment of the FAA [Act] helped generate this intent. The FAA [Act] was drafted in response to a series of fatal air crashes between civil and military aircraft operating under separate flight rules…In discussing the impetus for the FAA [Act], the Supreme Court has also noted that regulating the aviation industry requires a delicate balance between safety and efficiency. It is precisely because of ‘the interdependence of these factors’ that Congress enacted ‘a uniform and exclusive system of federal regulation’” (Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines, 508 F.3d 464, 471 (9th Cir. 2007), citing City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal Inc., 411 U.S. pp. 624, 638-39 (1973). “[W]hen we look to the historical impetus for the FAA, its legislative history, and the language of the [FAA] Act, it is clear that Congress intended to invest the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration with the authority to enact exclusive air safety standards. Moreover, the Administrator has chosen to exercise this authority by issuing such pervasive regulations that we can infer a preemptive intent to displace all state law on the subject of air safety” (Montalvo at 472). “While Congress may not have acted to occupy exclusively all of air commerce, it has clearly indicated its intent to be the sole regulator of aviation safety. The FAA, together with federal air safety regulations, establish complete and thorough safety standards for interstate and international air transportation that are not subject to supplementation by, or variation among, states” (Montalvo pp. 473-474.)

Greene v. B.F. Goodrich Avionics Systems, Inc. (2005)

Greene v. B.F. Goodrich Avionics Systems, Inc. 409 F.3d 784, 795. “… federal law establishes the standards of care in the field of aviation safety and thus preempts the field from state regulation.”

Witty v. Delta Airlines (2004)

Witty v. Delta Airlines. “… federal regulatory requirements for passenger safety warnings and instructions are exclusive and preempt all state standards and requirements.”

Skysign International, Inc. v. City and County of Honolulu (2002)

Skysign International, Inc. v. City and County of Honolulu, 276 F.3d 1109, 1115 (9th Cir. 2002). The Court ruled that laws traditionally related to state and local police powers – including land use, zoning, privacy, trespass, and law enforcement operations, generally are not subject to federal regulation. “We similarly hold that federal law occupies the entire field of aviation safety. Congress’ intent to displace state law is implicit in the pervasiveness of the federal regulations, the dominance of the federal interest in this area, and the legislative goal of establishing a single, uniform system of control over air safety. This holding is fully consistent with our decision where we considered whether federal law preempted state regulation of aerial advertising that was distracting and potentially dangerous to persons on the ground. In upholding the state regulations, we held that federal law has not ‘preempt[ed] altogether any state regulation purporting to reach into the navigable airspace’ (Skysign at 1116.)

Abdullah v. American Airlines (1999)

Abdullah v. American Airlines. “Congress’s intent to regulate interstate and international air safety to be unambiguous” and held “state and territorial standards of care in aviation safety are federally preempted.”

Gustafson v. City of Lake Angeles (1996)

Gustafson v. City of Lake Angeles, 76 F.3d 778, 792-793 (6th Cir. 1996). “Air traffic must be regulated at the national level. Without uniform equipment specifications, takeoff and landing rules, and safety standards, it would be impossible to operate a national air transportation system.”

Brown v United States (1996)

Brown v United States, 73 F.3d I100 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The case addressed whether noise and other effects from overflights interfered with the property owner’s rights in such a way as to constitute a taking of an avigation easement and hence require compensation. The planes flew directly over Brown’s land, the flights were low and frequent, and the flights directly and immediately interfered with his enjoyment and use of the land. Case law following Causby added a specification on the third factor, requiring that the interference with land enjoyment and usage be “substantial.” Brown’s contribution to the status of avigation easements is significant to avoid property holders from being caught between an absence of diminishment of current actual use of the property, and the creation of a six-year statute of limitations. If the court would have decided for the US government, finding that there must be an impairment of the current actual use of the property, the property holder who is not immediately suffering from the overflights would not have an action until after changes to the nature of the property actually impair the use of the property. The six-year statute of limitations for avigation easement claims start from either the time of the first overflights which cause the government taking, or from the time of substantially increased use and a new taking arises. If the landowner does not suffer an actual loss within this six-year period, she is forever precluded by the statute of limitations from seeking compensation for the taking. The highest value owed is not only the current value but a proposed possible use value. The Brown decision is that when accepting a market value compensation, the potential future uses must also be included. This is the first case in the realm of avigation easements to define the term “enjoyment and use” to include damages resulting from a decrease in the fair market value of the land for other uses to which the land could be converted. The implications of this decision are far-reaching. Because of the Brown decision, aircraft overflights do not have to cause immediate diminishment of the current actual use of the property.

French v. Pan Am Express (1989)

French v. Pan Am Express, Inc., 869 F.2d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 1989). “[W]e remark the Supreme Court’s reasoning regarding the need for uniformity [concerning] the regulation of aviation noise, see City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, 411 U.S. 624 (1973), and suggest that the same rationale applies here. In Burbank, the Court struck down a municipal anti-noise ordinance placing a curfew on jet flights from a regional airport. Citing the ‘pervasive nature of the scheme of federal regulation,’ the majority ruled that aircraft noise was wholly subject to federal hegemony, thereby preempting state or local enactments in the field. In our view, the pervasiveness of the federal web is as apparent in the matter of pilot qualification as in the matter of aircraft noise. If we upheld the Rhode Island statute as applied to airline pilots, ‘and a significant number of [states] followed suit, it is obvious that fractionalized control … would severely limit the flexibility of the F.A.A ….’ [citing Burbank] Moreover, a patchwork of state laws in this airspace, some in conflict with each other, would create a crazy quilt effect … The regulation of interstate flight and flyers must of necessity be monolithic. Its very nature permits no other conclusion. In the area of pilot fitness as in the area of aviation noise, the [FAA] Act as we read it ‘leave[s] no room for … local controls’ (citing Burbank).”

City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal (1973)

City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal. The US Supreme Court held that “[t]he Federal Aviation Act requires a delicate balance between safety and efficiency… and the protection of persons on the ground…[t]he interdependence of these factors requires a uniform and exclusive system of federal regulation if the congressional objectives underlying the Federal Aviation Act are to be fulfilled” (City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal Inc., 411 U.S. 624, 638–39 (1973). “If we were to uphold the Burbank ordinance [which placed an 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. curfew on jet flights from the Burbank Airport] and a significant number of municipalities followed suit, it is obvious that fractionalized control of the timing of takeoffs and landings would severely limit the flexibility of FAA in controlling air traffic flow. The difficulties of scheduling flights to avoid congestion and the concomitant decrease in safety would be compounded” (Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal Inc., 411 U.S. pp. 624, 639 (1973). “The paramount substantive concerns of Congress [in enacting the FAA Act] were to regulate federally all aspects of air safety…and, once aircraft were in ‘flight,’ airspace management….” (Burbank at p. 644).

Aaron v. United States (1963)

Aaron v. United States, 311 F.2d 798, 801 (Ct. Cl. 1963). 500 feet public airspace / private property demarcation line is maintained, even if future cases might arise where flights above 500 feet could constitute a government taking. The court ruled that owners of property over which planes flew at an elevation of fewer than 500 feet were indeed entitled to compensation, but they were not entitled to compensation for the flights above 500 feet although they may have been “inconvenienced to some extent by these flights”.

Griggs v. Allegheny County (1962)

Griggs v. Allegheny County, 369 U.S. 84 (1962). The Court found that what it called “air easements” and “navigation easements” were constitutionally protected “private property” (Griggs, 369 U.S. at 90). Allegheny County owned and maintained the Greater Pittsburgh Airport at a site it had acquired to provide airport facilities under the Federal Airport Act. The pattern of flight established by the Civil Aeronautics Administrator for airplane takeoff and landing from the airport required aircraft to fly regularly at low altitudes over Griggs’ residential property. The resulting noise, vibrations, and danger forced the Griggs family to move from their home. The Supreme Court held that the county had taken an air easement over Griggs’ property for which it must pay just compensation as required by the Fourteenth Amendment. Traditional common law provides that there is a trespass when a person or “thing”, such as tree branches or a telephone wire, enters onto another person’s land or into the airspace above the property. The mere intrusion is generally considered a trespass per se, without harm being proven. By 1965, common law trespass involving “aircraft” generally required both flight into the “immediate reaches” of a landowner’s airspace and a “substantial interference” with the “use and enjoyment of his land.” This aircraft trespass rule, still in use today, is said to be based on Causby. As between the common law trespass rules for airborne objects and aircraft, UAS industry stakeholders have generally taken the position that flights by drones should be governed by the trespass rule for aircraft, noting Congress has defined UAS as “aircraft” for purposes of federal aviation safety regulation. They also believe the aircraft trespass rule’s “substantial interference” requirement appropriately balances the rights of landowners and UAS operators. Other stakeholders and legal commentators, however, believe drone flights should be governed by the traditional trespass per se rule for airborne “things.” They state that small UAS flying through and hovering near the ground are more akin to small airborne objects covered by the traditional rule than larger crewed aircraft covered by the “aircraft” rule. They also state that requiring substantial interference for trespass by drones effectively replaces aerial trespass with a new tort of “aerial nuisance” and that landowners should be able to maintain their right to the exclusive use of their low-altitude airspace without having to prove the same high level of interference required by Causby for an unconstitutional taking.

US v. Causby (1946)

US v. Causby involved the Fifth amendment Takings Clause. The flight of aircraft is lawful unless at such a low altitude as to interfere with the then existing use to which the land, or the space over the land, is put by the owner, or unless so conducted as to be imminently dangerous to persons or property lawfully on the land. Subject to that right of flight, ownership of the space above the land is declared to be vested in the various owners of the land beneath and a Constitutional taking may be found.

Northwest Airlines v. State of Minnesota (1944)

Northwest Airlines v. State of Minnesota, 322 U.S. 292, 303 (1944). “Congress recognized the national responsibility for regulating air commerce. Federal control is intensive and exclusive. Planes do not wander about in the sky like vagrant clouds. They move only by federal permission, subject to federal inspection, in the hands of federally certified personnel, and under an intricate system of federal commands. The moment a ship taxies onto a runway it is caught up in an elaborate and detailed system of controls. It takes off only by instruction from the control tower, it travels on prescribed beams, it may be diverted from its intended landing, and it obeys signals and orders. Its privileges, rights, and protection, so far as transit is concerned, it owes to the Federal Government alone and not to any state government.”

A list of several other cases: 

Jan 2021 – Man pleads guilty after drone hits LAPD helicopter, conviction 1st of its kind

August 2020 – Man calls being charged for ‘petty’ Snyder County drone incident ‘absolutely ridiculous’

March 2019 – PA Drone case could be landmark testing FAA control

December 2019 – PA Court case sets legal precedent in drone governance shows FAA Drone Regs enforceable

July 2018 – FAA’s restrictions on drones withstand a hobbyist’s legal challenge

January 2017 – Man convicted in drone crash that injured woman during Seattle’s Pride Parade

March 2017 – Paul Skinner, aerial photographer, lands 30-day prison sentence for Seattle drone crash

August 2017 – Man arrested for drone intrusion over Goodwin Fire

November 2017 – Man charged with piloting drone that struck Space Needle on New Year’s Eve

March 2016 – $200 fine, community service for guy who flew drone into empire state building

September 2015 – Man arrested for flying drone outside hospital windows: ‘I am not a Peeping Tom’

June 2014 – State v. Brossart: Adapting the Fourth Amendment for a future with drones

Short Essay Questions

Short Essay Questions

  1. Why is the FMRA of 2012 important for UAS users?
  2. Why is the FESSA of 2016 important for UAS users?
  3. Why is the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 important for UAS users?
  4. What are the roles of the three branches of the government as they pertain to drone laws?
  5. To which of the three branches does the FAA belong?
  6. How do the states get to regulate drones?
  7. How do the tribes get to regulate drones?
  8. Can you name and describe a drone case which involved the First Amendment of our US Constitution?
  9. Can you name and describe a drone case involving state preemption?
  10. How did Congress address Counter-UAS?
  11. How did the FAA address Remote ID?
  12. What is a FRIA?

 

License

Icon for the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License

Drones Across the World Copyright © 2023 by Sarah Nilsson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book