For years, the relationship between the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the burgeoning community of amateur drone enthusiasts was defined by what the agency called “compliance philosophy.” If a pilot accidentally strayed into restricted airspace or buzzed too close to a crowd, the response was typically a firm handshake, a stern talking-to, or perhaps a mandatory training course.
That era of the “educational olive branch” is officially over.
In a quiet but seismic shift to the agency’s rulebook—specifically FAA Order 2150.3C—the regulator has moved to a “full enforcement” footing. Under the directive of Administrator Bryan Bedford, who took office last summer, the FAA is now mandated to pursue legal action as the default response for drone operations that endanger the public, violate airspace restrictions, or assist in criminal activity.
The policy change, greenlit in late January, strips away much of the discretion previously held by field investigators. Where an inspector might once have issued a warning letter, they are now required to refer qualifying cases directly to the Office of the Chief Counsel.
“The FAA is effectively trading the scalpel for a hammer,” says one industry analyst. “They are no longer interested in whether you knew the rules; they are interested in whether you broke them.”
The new guidance introduces a “lack of care” standard. In the eyes of the 2026 FAA, a single serious lapse in judgment is now considered evidence that a pilot—whether flying a DJI Mavic or a Boeing 747—is unqualified to hold any airman certificates.
The financial stakes have risen as sharply as the legal ones. Civil penalties for high-risk violations have been hiked to as much as $75,000 (£60,000) per violation.
The agency has already begun making examples of those who interfere with emergency services. Between 2023 and 2025, eighteen fines were issued, including a landmark $36,770 penalty for a pilot whose drone disrupted aircraft fighting a wildfire. Under the new 2026 rules, such a fine would likely represent the starting point, not the ceiling.
The ‘Special Emphasis’ List
The FAA has highlighted several “hot zones” where zero tolerance is now the absolute rule:
- Emergency Sites: Any drone activity near wildfire suppression, law enforcement operations, or medical evacuations.
- Restricted Airspace: Violations of Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs), particularly around high-profile locations like Mar-a-Lago or “special event” venues like the Super Bowl.
- Public Safety: Flying over large crowds or incidents involving “entanglement” with other aircraft, such as paragliders.
Perhaps the most stinging aspect of the update is its effect on dual-certified pilots. Under the “full enforcement” policy, a commercial airline pilot who violates drone regulations on their weekend off risks losing not just their Remote Pilot Certificate, but their manned aircraft certifications as well.
The message from Washington is clear: if you cannot be trusted with a drone, you cannot be trusted with a cockpit.
Related
Discover more from sUAS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
WASHINGTON – The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposed $341,413 in civil penalties against 27 people who violated federal drone regulations. The FAA issued the fines between October 2022 and June 2024.
Drone operators who conduct unsafe or unauthorized operations face fines up to $75,000 per violation, an increase included in the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024. The FAA also can suspend or revoke drone operators’ pilot certificates.
“Violating the drone regulations puts lives at risk in the air and on the ground,” said FAA Administrator Mike Whitaker. “Flying a small drone means you are flying an aircraft, and unsafe behavior will cost you.”
The FAA encourages people to report unsafe and unauthorized drone operations to their local Flight Standards District Office. The agency reviews all reports and investigates when appropriate. The FAA has resources here to help people fly safely.
The FAA does not identify individuals against whom it proposes civil penalties. Among the enforcement cases are:
- $32,700 against a person who interfered with a law enforcement operation while flying an improperly registered and unlit drone on Sept. 22, 2021, in Wesley Chapel, Florida. The drone operator flew so close to a Pasco County Sheriff’s Office helicopter that the pilot had to stop the search for a burglary suspect to prevent a mid-air collision. The individual operated at night without a Remote Pilot Certificate, did not have anti-collision lighting and flew the drone higher than the 400-foot limit.
- $18,200 against a person who operated an unregistered drone during the weekend of the Miami Grand Prix, a Formula 1 event, on May 7, 2022 in Florida. The operator disregarded a temporary flight restriction (TFR) and several FAA regulations, including operating in Class D airspace without prior authorization, not maintaining visual line of sight with the aircraft at all times and operating without a Remote Pilot Certificate.
- $16,000 and $4,000 against two people who operated drones near SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, California, while a Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) was in place for Super Bowl LVI on Feb. 13, 2022. The airspace was classified as national defense airspace, the operators flew drones in Class B airspace without authorization, and neither possessed a Remote Pilot Certificate.
- $7,760 against a person who operated an unregistered drone using first person view inside Paul Brown Stadium in Cincinnati, Ohio, on Jan. 15, 2022. The operator flew over the crowd during an NFL game at night, did not have a Remote Pilot Certificate and flew beyond-visual-line-of-sight in a Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) without an approved FAA airspace waiver.
- $5,000 against a person who created a collision hazard while flying a drone close to a helicopter in Little Rock, Arkansas on July 30, 2022. The drone crashed to the ground after experiencing rotor wash from the helicopter. The drone operator did not have a Remote Pilot Certificate.
Discover more from sUAS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Raleigh, N.C. – The North Carolina General Assembly has enacted House Bill 198, effectively removing the state uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS) operator knowledge test and permit. This significant legislative change is largely due to the dedicated efforts of AeroX and its members, who have been instrumental in educating lawmakers about the benefits of drones and fostering a favorable business environment for advanced drone operations in North Carolina.
The North Carolina UAS knowledge test and operator permit was first introduced into law in 2014 in Session Law 2014-100, along with other laws focused on the criminal use of drones. The law requires both state/local government and commercial drone operators to pass the North Carolina Department of Transportation’s (NCDOT) UAS Operator Knowledge Test. Commercial drone operators are also required to obtain the NCDOT UAS permit. This process could be completed online, and the permit would need to be renewed every two years.
Basil Yap, President of AeroX, recalls the early discussions surrounding the law. In 2014, as a state employee with the NCDOT Division of Aviation, Yap attended legislative Transportation Committee meetings. “There were significant concerns about the security and privacy of drone usage and a belief that the FAA was not moving quickly enough to capitalize on business opportunities,” Yap said. “One legislator even suggested that if the FAA wasn’t going to create a drone pilot license, the state would help push them along by passing our own.” In 2014, the FAA did not have a drone operator license in place. It wasn’t until 2016, with the introduction of the Small UAS Rule (Part 107), that the FAA began issuing the Remote Pilot Certificate.
From 2016 to 2020, Yap served as UAS Program Manager at NCDOT, where he helped establish the online knowledge test and permitting process. In addition, he led North Carolina’s participation in the FAA UAS Integration Pilot Program. During this time, drone operators frequently questioned why North Carolina was the only state with a UAS permit, viewing it as a redundant requirement to FAA’s Remote Pilot Certificate.
Since its formation in 2021, AeroX has prioritized regular engagement with the General Assembly to advocate for the drone industry. Last year, AeroX hosted a UAS Legislative Day on the Halifax Mall next to the General Assembly building, allowing legislators to observe drone operations and interact with manufacturers and operators. This spring, AeroX hosted the state legislature’s UAS Caucus at its Winston-Salem office, providing a platform for drone operators to discuss their expanding operations.
House Bill 198, titled DOT Legislative Changes, was first introduced in February of 2023 but was not sent to the Governor’s desk until May of 2024. Due to an issue regarding billboards, right-of-ways, and the cutting of certain trees, Gov. Cooper vetoed the bill. The House and Senate both overrode Gov. Cooper’s veto, thus codifying the bill into law on June 27th, 2024. The new law repeals Article 10 of Chapter 63 of the state’s General Statutes, which includes the requirements for a UAS knowledge test and a NC UAS Permit for commercial drone operators. The repeal will become effective on December 1, 2024.
About AeroX
AeroX is a nonprofit organization of business, government and community partners focused on facilitating the safe and efficient commercialization of unmanned aircraft systems technologies in North Carolina. It aims to capitalize on North Carolina’s prominence as a UAS innovation leader by creating a national model ecosystem for advanced air mobility and a testbed for pioneering companies seeking to leverage emerging UAS technologies to grow their companies. Learn more at www.ncaerox.com.
Discover more from sUAS News – The Business of Drones
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
But we found that FAA has few resources to support tribal, state, and local law enforcement in using the technology. Organizations we contacted representing these law enforcement groups told us that they hadn’t received information from FAA on how they could use Remote ID.
We recommended, among other things, that FAA help tribal, state, and local law enforcement understand how to use Remote ID to help with drone investigations.
What GAO Found
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) generally requires drones to be equipped with Remote ID technology, which FAA describes as a “digital license plate.” Law enforcement can use Remote ID to identify and investigate unauthorized drone activity, in line with FAA’s goal for Remote ID to help law enforcement. However, GAO found that FAA has limited resources to support tribal, state, and local law enforcement on using the technology. Tribal, state, and local law enforcement agencies GAO contacted had little knowledge of Remote ID or how it could be used in their investigations. Developing such resources could help FAA better support law enforcement’s ability to use Remote ID. Further, FAA is developing an interface to provide drone registration information from Remote ID to law enforcement but does not have a plan or timeline for releasing it. At the same time, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is developing an application for law enforcement that would link to FAA’s interface, but DHS similarly does not have a plan or timeline for the effort. As a result, law enforcement may continue to experience delays with accessing real-time information needed to track and investigate unauthorized drone activity.
Examples of Drone Uses within the National Airspace System
FAA officials and stakeholders identified limitations with using current Remote ID technology to enable advanced drone operations, such as traffic management. FAA regulations call for drones to use broadcast-based Remote ID technologies, such as Wi-Fi and Bluetooth to transmit their location. However, commercial drone stakeholders told GAO that a broadcast-based signal is not sufficient for providing real-time, networked data about drone location and status as needed for advanced operations. FAA has stated it expects industry will pursue network technologies for Remote ID, such as cellular, while continuing to transmit the required broadcast-based Remote ID signal. However, stakeholders representing a commercial drone group said that there is a general lack of willingness by industry to develop network-based Remote ID alongside the required broadcast-based approach due to practical limitations, such as signal interference. FAA officials said that in the future, FAA may begin assessing what additional technology can be developed. FAA’s progress toward integrating drones into the national airspace may be at risk if the agency does not assess these issues and identify a path forward.
Why GAO Did This Study
Drones are the fastest-growing segment of aviation in the U.S., according to FAA. Remote ID is intended to help FAA, law enforcement, and others locate drone operators flying in an unsafe manner or where prohibited. FAA is responsible for safely integrating drones into the national airspace and notes that Remote ID could help enable advanced drone operations.
GAO was asked to review issues related to Remote ID. This report assesses (1) potential law enforcement uses for Remote ID, and related federal support, and (2) any limitations FAA and stakeholders may face using Remote ID for advanced operations.
GAO reviewed FAA guidance and resources for Remote ID. GAO also reviewed FAA’s plans for integrating drones into the national airspace. GAO interviewed FAA and DHS officials, and law enforcement and industry stakeholders that GAO identified based on their participation on FAA committees and input from other stakeholders. GAO also reviewed DHS efforts to develop a Remote ID application.
Recommendations
GAO is making three recommendations to FAA and one to DHS, including that FAA develop resources to help tribal, state, and local law enforcement use Remote ID; FAA develop a plan and timeline for a Remote ID interface; FAA identify a path forward for providing real-time, networked data about the location and status of drones; and DHS develop a plan and timeline for its Remote ID application. FAA and DHS concurred with our recommendations.
Recommendations for Executive Action
| Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Federal Aviation Administration | The Administrator of FAA should develop resources to help tribal, state, and local law enforcement use Remote ID. (Recommendation 1) | Open When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information. |
| Federal Aviation Administration | The Administrator of FAA should develop a plan and timeline for deploying FAA’s interface in collaboration with DHS and DOJ. (Recommendation 2) | Open When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information. |
| Department of Homeland Security | The Secretary of Homeland Security should develop a plan and timeline for deploying its Remote ID app in collaboration with FAA and DOJ. (Recommendation 3) | Open When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information. |
| Federal Aviation Administration | The Administrator of FAA should identify a path forward for how to provide real-time, networked data about the location and status of drones. This could include identifying and assessing short-term and long-term options and clarifying roles and responsibilities. (Recommendation 4) | Open When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information. |
Full Report
]]>
The FAA’s policy for exercising discretion in determining whether to take enforcement action for drone operators who were not able to comply with the Remote ID Rule ends on March 16, 2024. Operators who do not comply after that date could face fines and suspension or revocation of their drone pilot certificates.
Remote ID applies to drones which are required to be registered or have been registered with the FAA, including those flown for recreation, business, or public safety, and drones that are foreign-registered.
Why is Remote ID necessary?
Remote ID is necessary to ensure the safety and security of the national airspace system by distinguishing compliant airspace users from those potentially posing a safety or security risk. Remote ID also helps to lay the foundation for routine advanced operations such as package delivery and flying beyond visual line of sight.
What do I need to do?
There are three ways to comply with Remote ID:
1. Operate a Standard Remote ID Drone – a drone produced with built-in Remote ID broadcast capabilities; or
2. Operate a Drone with a Remote ID Broadcast Module – a device with Remote ID broadcast capabilities that can be attached to a drone; or
3. Operate at an FAA-Recognized Identification Area (FRIA) – areas where drones without Remote ID broadcast capabilities can operate.
How do I know if my drone or broadcast module is Remote ID compliant?
1. Go to the FAA UAS Declaration of Compliance website
2. Click on “View Public DOC List”
3. Filter by “RID” and “Accepted”
4. Search for your drone or broadcast module
My FAA-registered drone or broadcast module broadcasts Remote ID but is not on the Public DOC List, am I Remote ID compliant?
No, even if advertised as “Remote ID ready” or uses other verbiage, only drones or broadcast modules listed on the FAA DOC are in compliance with the rule.
Do I need to update my drone’s registration with Remote ID information?
If your drone or broadcast module is listed on the public DOC list, you need to register or update your existing drone registration through FAADroneZone to include the standard Remote ID drone or Remote ID broadcast module serial number. The Remote ID serial number is not the same as your drone’s serial number. Drone owners should check with their manufacturer for additional information.
Since recreational pilots only need to register once and can apply that registration number to multiple aircraft, they can list one Remote ID broadcast module serial number and move the broadcast module from drone to drone as long as it is listed on the same registration.
Part 107 pilots need to register each drone individually. Therefore, each drone must have its own Standard Remote ID or Remote ID broadcast module serial number.
Visit our Remote ID webpage to learn more about adding a Remote ID serial number to your drone’s registration.
Have more questions? We’re here to help at the UAS Support Center or call us at 844-FLY-MY-UA (844-359-6982).
]]>
On March 10, FPVFC President Dave Messina received a phone call from the FAA requesting that we update our safety guidelines. Specifically to update our night operations and add something for FPV racing. The request to add guidelines specific to FPV racing are particularly odd as we already have guidelines specifically about racing sprinkled throughout the document.
As a result of this phone call, we sent the following response to the FAA with updated sections on night operations and FPV racing.
In short, we reiterated what the FAA specifies about night operations in the 44809 rules and then copied all the FPV racing guidelines into a new section.
NEW SUGGESTED ADDITIONS TO OUR SAFETY GUIDELINES
Night Operations:
1. Night Operations – Under 49 U.S.C. Section 44809(a)(3), recreational flyers or VOs must maintain VLOS through the flight, including when operating at night.
a. Night flight is permitted in areas that are sufficiently illuminated so that recreational flyers or VOs can maintain VLOS of the aircraft through the flight and identify potential ground or airborne hazards.
b. Prior to your flight at night, check for obstacles that may not be easily seen in the dark.
c. Lighting on the sUAS should not pose a hazard or cause distraction to the flyer or VO.
d. Additional background information is available at FAA-H-8083- 3C, Airplane Flying Handbook, Chapter 11, Night Operations.
FPV Racing operations:
No FPV Race flight operation should take place in an area or manner that disrupts or poses a danger to any of the following:
○ a. Emergency response efforts, to include law enforcement actions, fire response actions, or military actions, unless the operator is actively engaged in the operation with proper clearance from the authorities.
○ b. Areas where crowds of people gather, to include sporting, musical, or political events.
○ c. Civil infrastructure, to include power, water, and transportation facilities.
Set-back distances for FPV racing:
The FPVFC recommends two sets of set-back distances: One for micro-UAS aircraft and one for FPV racing within an outdoor race course. Micro-UAS racing takes place both indoors and outside. These aircraft normally have shrouded props and are under 250 grams All Up Weight. The amount of kinetic energy these micro aircraft can transfer in a crash is very small. And, as technology improves, these aircraft are expected to get lighter. For these reasons, the FPVFC recommends no set-back restrictions for micro-UAS FPV racing.
For larger FPV aircraft which use outdoor race courses and today are typified by 5” propellers, the FPVFC recommends a 25-foot set-back between the race course
and the pilots, VO’s and spectators. FPV racing is unlike model airplane pylon racing where the aircraft fly at high speed around pylons and the risk of over-flight of spectators is great due to the courses being made up of fly straight, then turn. In contrast, a FPV race course is highly three dimensional where a pilot must fly to a gate and for example circle around it or fly up or down the gate. In other words, a FPV racer spends much of the race maneuvering around a gate and not flying long, straight flight paths toward the pilots or spectators.
In case of emergency at an FPV Race:
Emergencies during a FPV race: Like other types of racing, if a vehicle can cross a finish line, there is no emergency. In auto racing, a car must not pose a safety risk to other cars and drivers. FPVFC considers FPVFC Safety Guidelines for FPV racing states: If a UA in a race poses minimal threat to pilots, race operation personnel or spectators, no emergency exists. To be clear, this means if a prop is badly chipped or if a battery is dangling from a FPV racing drone, the racer is encouraged to continue racing so long as only a minimal safety risk is posed to pilots, race operations personnel or spectators.
Unanticipated people or aircraft entering the area of operation:
FPV Races normally fly no higher than 50 to 75 feet AGL. Therefore, it would be in the most unusual circumstances that a manned or crewed aircraft enter the airspace volume where a FPV race is taking place. If that happens, these actions should be followed.
As sUAS, we must give way to all manned or crewed aircraft. So if a crewed aircraft enters your area of operation, fly away from the crewed aircraft or disarm, whichever is safer, as soon as possible.
If people enter the area of operation, the race coordinators will manage the situation. Likely, the race will be stopped until the people are cleared from the race course.
Parts or attachments of the sUAS become lose or break off:
A FPV race is a controlled, very low altitude (less than 50 to 75 feet AGL) operation. Parts may become loose on a FPV sUAS. As long as no safety risk is posed to the pilot, race operations or spectators, the FPV racer is encouraged to continue the race.
Electrical arcing or battery or component fire:
It is highly unusual for a sUAS to arc or catch on fire in the air. Normally, the most likely time of a fire is if a FPV sUAS is in a bad crash and the battery remains connected. If the battery is punctured, it will likely catch on fire and it should be handled as if it will immediately catch fire. Keep a fire extinguisher on hand for such an emergency.
In the highly unlikely event of an in-air fire, the best thing to do is, switch failsafe to ON (assumes you have set failsafe on a switch), or shut off the transmitter to engage Failsafe.
Alcohol or Drugs and Drones don’t mix:
Crewed aircraft pilots have learned many acronyms to remind them to be extra safe. The FPVFC recommends not drinking or taking recreational drugs and flying in FPV races. FPV Racers should not fly while taking prescription drugs if the drug interferes with the racer’s ability to operate the sUAS safely.
The FPVFC participated in a Drone Advisory Committee Safety Culture Tasking Group in 2021. One of the major ideas that came out of that Tasking and was agreed to by the FAA is with Safety, One Size Does Not Fit All. In other words, Safety guidelines should be proportional to the risk. In other words, the following IMSAFE acronym has a different meaning if an FPV operator is flying a micro sUAS or participating in a FPV race with a 5” propped sUAS. Common sense is required to understand the operation and what level of IMSAFE is unsafe.
Stress is a normal part of competition. Like all the FPVFC Safety Guidelines, we encourage a commonsense interpretation. We include Stress in this section of the FPVFC Safety Guidelines to mean a level of stress that would prevent a FPV operator from controlling his or her UA safely. We expect and love the stress and excitement of participating in FPV racing. That said, we recommend that FPV racers not fly UA’s when their level of stress is so high they cannot fly safely.
Another aspect of stress in recreational FPV should be noted. We have experienced and have FPV community members share with us that a leading attribute of FPV UA flight is stress relief. This is so profound that individuals with chronic pain or suffering from PTSD convey to us that FPV flight helps relieve stress. We point this out to again emphasize common sense. If an individual has had a difficult day and takes a FPV UA flight to relieve stress, we assume this individual is able to control the UA safely. And,the level of risk is proportional to the safety precautions taken.
Fatigue. Fatigue is an accepted component in any competition. Fatigue in FPV racing is no different. FPV racers should stop racing if they are fatigued to a point of being incapable of racing. Once again, the level of risk to pilots, people involved in the race and spectators is low at any time in a FPV race. These are small UA’s flying away from a group.
FAA RESPONSE
The FAA then asked us to provide them with a complete copy of the new guidelines, not just the sections that were changed. As a result of this, they took the opportunity to review ALL the guidelines and provide suggestions for changes, which as you know, were just approved by the FAA back in the middle of December, just 3 months ago.
FAA COMMENTS ON NIGHT OPERATIONS
Lighting on the sUAS should not pose a hazard or cause distraction to the flyer or VO.
“This is where anti-collision lights need to be mentioned. Also no mention of navigation/position lighting so as to see and ascertain the direction of flight. Both of these aspects are critical to safe operations at night.” – FAA
Additional background information is available at FAA-H-8083- 3C, Airplane Flying Handbook, Chapter 11, Night Operations.
“Recommend this have more firm direction on the physiological aspects of night flight. Words like members must or should read… Knowing one’s physical limitations is critical to safe operations at night.” – FAA
FAA COMMENTS ON FPV RACING
The FPVFC recommends two sets of set-back distances: One for micro-UAS aircraft and one for FPV racing within an outdoor race course. Micro-UAS racing takes place both indoors and outside. These aircraft normally have shrouded props and are under 250 grams All Up Weight. The amount of kinetic energy these micro aircraft can transfer in a crash is very small. And, as technology improves, these aircraft are expected to get lighter. For these reasons, the FPVFC recommends no set-back restrictions for micro-UAS FPV racing.
“Suggest add “additional” before “set back” since you have restrictions for no operations over people, which should include more direct language and add “near” with over people. My 2₵” – FAA
For larger FPV aircraft which use outdoor race courses and today are typified by 5” propellers, the FPVFC recommends a 25-foot set-back between the race course and the pilots, VO’s and spectators.
“Is there an upper limit? Should specify one.” – FAA
FPV racing is unlike model airplane pylon racing where the aircraft fly at high speed around pylons and the risk of over-flight of spectators is great due to the courses being made up of fly straight, then turn. In contrast, a FPV race course is highly three dimensional where a pilot must fly to a gate and for example circle around it or fly up or down the gate. In other words, a FPV racer spends much of the race maneuvering around a gate and not flying long, straight flight paths toward the pilots or spectators.
“Pylon racing long part is parallel to the safe spectator line. If the UAs are constantly maneuvering, is 25ft really enough for the speeds at which the UAs operate? If they are moving quickly 25ft is likely not enough. What about netting? What else?” – FAA
If a UA in a race poses minimal threat to pilots, race operation personnel or spectators, no emergency exists.
“No additional risk is better” – FAA
To be clear, this means if a prop is badly chipped or if a battery is dangling from a FPV racing drone, the racer is encouraged to continue racing so long as only a minimal safety risk is posed to pilots, race operations personnel or spectators.
“How about no increased risk? The racers must pose no undue risk to persons.” – FAA
If people enter the area of operation, the race coordinators will manage the situation.
(referring to race coordinators) “Who are they? How does FPVFC select or train them? Are they just a person on site charged with race supervision or what?” – FAA
Likely, the race will be stopped until the people are cleared from the race course.
“Hopefully people are nowhere near the course let alone on it. What about boundary security to prevent trespass or observers to halt the race should someone approach?”
Then in reference to the section we have called, “Alcohol or Drugs and Drones don’t mix”, the FAA stated:
“This area is covered in the normal part so does it also need to be here, perhaps other than mentioning all other guidelines apply?” – FAA
FAA COMMENTS ON THE REST OF OUR EXISTING, PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SAFETY GUIDELINES
Guidelines: The Statue for Recreational UAS stipulates that in order to fly legally, a Recreational operator must adhere to the Safety Guidelines of a Community Based Organization. As these guidelines are not statue, they are presented as recommendations.
“Regardless they must be followed by law. It does not give one the latitude to do things outside of these guidelines. Not following safety guidelines is the same as not following the law. Hence some language should be more directive.” – FAA
We have also gained agreement in the submitted and accepted BVLOS Aviation Rulemaking Committee final report that FPV IMPROVES situational awareness.
“This could confuse some into thinking that BVLOS is OK for recreational flyers. consider deleting as it does nothing to further the point of VLOS and VOs for FPV. ” – FAA
Authorization for Operations in Controlled Airspace:
“So are you saying FPVFC members must follow the AC? You have copied what the FAA recommends so am I to assume you are including all this as FPVFC guidelines? If so, then so state for clarity.” – FAA
The Recreational UAS Safety Test (TRUST) requirement
“Same comment here as with airspace. Could be more explicit as to what FPVFC dictates.” – FAA
Appropriate failsafe programming of the FPV aircraft must be in place before any flight.
“Should be expanded to explain what is appropriate failsafe programing.” – FAA
Operations over people are permitted under part 107 with equipment and operations restrictions. If your flying requires flight over people, the FPVFC recommends you take the exam to be certified as a part 107 pilot.
“Recommend deleting as it confuses 44809 and Part 107 operations. ” – FAA
Flying over people could be dangerous and could be considered reckless.
“Disagree with your use of “could be”. Given untrained or certified operators and aircraft, flying over or near persons is hazardous, even in 107 operations unless Cat 1, 2, 3, or 4 or waiver per 107 is obtained.” – FAA
For these reasons, FPVFC’s position on recreational operations over people is that it should be avoided.
“Recommend stronger language such as must be avoided or simply “Do not fly over or near persons to avoid creating a hazardous situation.” – FAA
Crewed aircraft pilots have learned many acronyms to remind them to be extra safe.
“So what? Is this applicable?” – FAA
Reporting safety incidents:
The FPVFC has been accepted as a member of the FAA-Industry Drone Safety Team in early 2022. On October 20, 2022, Co-Chairs of the DST, Abby Smith and Pete DuMont presented current and planned activities of the DST. One of the activities Pete presented is being led by Dave Messina, President and CEO of FPVFC. The action is an ad hoc committee to recommend changes to the UAS ASRS (Unmanned Aerial System Aviation Safety Reporting System). The UAS ASRS was constituted under AC 00-46F. The UAS ASRS is funded by the FAA and managed by NASA. The UAS ASRS provides an anonymous reporting of safety incidents which are published for the public’s, industry’s and government’s use.
The ASRS was created for manned aircraft in April 1976 to help lower the number of fatalities resulting from aircraft crashes. As electric powered sUAS have had zero fatalities, the FPVFC’s view is a great use of the UAS ASRS would be to create a repository of safety incidents which will provide a better understanding of trends and risks of sUAS operations. As the FPVFC is already engaged in the improvement of the UAS ASRS, the FPVFC anticipates it will continue advocating the use of the UAS ASRS. In particular, the UAS ASRS can be of immediate benefit by providing a repository of best safety practices. For recreational sUAS, the FPVFC considers the following areas where use of the UAS ASRS would benefit the community:
● Battery Safety
● Preflight checklist
● Propeller Safety
● Get authorization to fly
● In-flight best practices
● Post flight inspection
“This whole section is a lot of self promotion and ASRS verbiage. Why not say use ASRS? If using ASRS great, but how is FPVFC to know and react to reported incidents? FPVFC has not stated it has a safety reporting system upon which it can act. Recommend you put one in place.” – FAA
Our guidelines have the following in the definitions section:
Night Flight. As defined by the FAA, it is flight during the period between the end of evening civil twilight and the beginning of morning civil twilight. For us in recreational UAS, a good rule of thumb is just turn on the anti-collision light during dusk, dawn and night time.
“More than a good rule of thumb it should be included in your night section as mentioned in the update.” – FAA
ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK
The FAA also stated that, “This process of coordination is to ensure a minimum level of safety is attained for recreational operations in the NAS.”
]]>
I placed my rant hat fully on my head yesterday, and in many ways (most) just shouting about it does nothing. So before opening a Friday adult beverage I thought I would have a crack at pulling myself towards myself.
I think it’s important to frame what is expected of our gatekeepers, these are five frames of reference that I could think of.
At the moment the CAA, EASA, FAA, CAASA and all the other aviation acronyms tell the industry what they demand of operators, is it not time for the other side to show its requirements?
- Develop Clear Guidelines and Regulations
Draft clear and concise guidelines and regulations that apply to the use of drones. These guidelines should cover things like sadly, drone registration, pilot certification, and airspace restrictions. If these evolve before changes are promulgated the folks communicating the changes should have a clear understanding of their implications to incumbent operators.
- Promote Industry Standards
Industry standards for the design and manufacture of drones. By working with drone manufacturers and other industry stakeholders, regulators can help to ensure that drones are designed and built to meet high standards for safety and reliability. Standards created from data collected, not from thumb suck safety information. These standards should hold worldwide.
- Encourage Innovation and Growth
This can be done by providing incentives for research and development. This should only be undertaken with established entities that actually do the work or a part of it that they seek to improve. Grand ideas based on things that don’t yet exist should not be entertained.
4. Ensure Compliance and Enforcement
Monitoring drone activity and enforcing regulations where necessary. By holding operators accountable for their actions, when folks are foolish act.
- Provide Education and Training
That previous comment is the stick, there really should be more carrot, in the form of training regulators can play an important role in providing education and training to drone operators. There really should be closer ties with model associations around the world but no attempt should be made to give them a golden ticket of exclusivity.
I admit this has been a bit of a rush as I want to get to that adult beverage.
I will reiterate what I said before all of us in the industry want a safe secure digital sky. That’s a given.
We also expect regulators who are paid for by the industry to be working for us efficiently.
Time for some sort of performance standard or ranking of them by drone drivers. An sUAS News drone industry insight report that will only cost $XYZ
Bottoms up
]]>
Why GAO Did This Study
Drones can provide significant social and economic benefits. For example, drones can be used to inspect infrastructure, aid in disaster and wildfire response, and deliver medical supplies.
GAO was asked to review FAA’s efforts to integrate drones into the national airspace system. This report examines, among other issues, the extent to which:
(1) FAA’s approach to managing its drone integration efforts is consistent with key elements for a comprehensive strategy and
(2) FAA has clearly communicated its requirements and process for reviewing and approving operational requests.
GAO analyzed FAA’s planning documents and reports. GAO interviewed FAA officials, eight participants in one of FAA’s pilot programs, and 15 industry groups, representing manufacturers, operators, and others. GAO selected industry stakeholders due to their participation in FAA pilot programs and rulemaking advisory committees, among other factors.
What GAO Recommends
GAO is making four recommendations, including that FAA:
(1) develop a drone integration strategy that includes all elements of a comprehensive strategy
(2) evaluate its current documentation to identify options to more clearly communicate how
applicants can satisfy drone operational request requirements and FAA’s process for reviewing and
approving operational requests. FAA concurred with GAO’s recommendations.
This action announces a public meeting of the UAS Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) Final Report.
Dates
The meeting will be held on June 22, 2022, from 5:30 p.m.-7:30 p.m. Eastern Time.
Request for accommodations to a disability must be received by June 13, 2022.
Request to provide oral comment must be received by June 7, 2022.
Written comments will be accepted through June 29, 2022.
Addresses
This meeting will be held virtually. Members of the public who wish to view the meeting can access the livestream on the following FAA social media platforms on the day of the event, https://www.facebook.com/FAA or https://www.youtube.com/FAAnews
Members of the public who wish to provide written comments and/or oral comments may do so by emailing [email protected]
Meeting minutes and other information will be posted at: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/index.cfm/committee/browse/committeeID/837
For Further Information Contact
Laura E. Gómez, 202-267-8076, Federal Aviation Administration, at [email protected] with “Attention to Laura E. Gómez” in the subject line.
Supplementary Information
Background
On June 8, 2021, the FAA established the UAS BVLOS ARC to provide recommendations to the FAA on performance-based regulatory requirements to normalize safe, scalable, economically viable, and environmentally advantageous UAS BVLOS operations that are not under positive air traffic control (ATC). The UAS BVLOS ARC, composed of stakeholders from 86 organizations, was tasked with providing recommendations that addressed requirements and supported concepts of the following BVLOS operations: Long-line linear infrastructure inspections, industrial aerial data gathering, small package delivery, and precision agriculture operations, including crop spraying.
A copy of the UAS BVLOS ARC charter and final report can be downloaded at: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/index.cfm/committee/browse/committeeID/837
Purpose
The FAA is hosting a public meeting to give members of the public an opportunity to comment on the UAS BVLOS ARC Final Report. We invite public comments related to all aspects of the final report. In particular, we are interested in comments related to initial reactions and areas that the FAA should further explore for performance-based regulatory requirements to normalize safe, scalable, economically viable, and environmentally advantageous UAS BVLOS operations that are not under positive ATC.
Public Participation
Requests to provide oral comments related to the BVLOS ARC report during the meeting must be received no later than June 7, 2022, and must include the commenter’s full name and email address. Requests received without this information may not be given the opportunity to provide oral comments. The opportunity to provide oral comment will be given in the order that the requests are received. Comments should be limited to five minutes and must be reserved to the topic of the BVLOS ARC Final Report. Members of the public who submit a request to make oral comments during the meeting will receive a confirmation email with instructions on how to participate in the meeting virtually.
Commenters who may need longer than five minutes are strongly encouraged to submit a written comment. The FAA will accept written comments until June 29, 2022.
The U.S. Department of Transportation is committed to providing equal access to this meeting for all participants. If you need alternative formats or services because of a disability, such as sign language, interpretation, or other ancillary aids, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Issued in Washington, DC.Abigail A. Smith,Deputy Executive Director, UAS Integration Office (AUS), Federal Aviation Administration.[FR Doc. 2022-10164 Filed 5-11-22; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
]]>
The Drone Racing League (DRL), the world’s premier, professional drone racing property, today announced it has been accredited by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as the first unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) event organizer. A leader in drone-event safety, DRL also announced its participation in FAA’s Partnership for Safety Plan (PSP) Program to establish a standardized set of safety protocols for individuals and organizations seeking to conduct unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) demonstrations, air shows, exhibitions and events in front of live audiences.
To help the industry maximize drone safety at their events, DRL will support the FAA in evaluating safety procedures and technology, developing and implementing official U.S. drone event safety guidelines, and educating the drone community on drone safety. The league will also continue to adhere to the highest safety protocols at their high-speed drone races, which take place in iconic locations, like stadiums, landmarks, and museums, and are watched by millions of fans on NBC, NBCSN, Twitter and other premier networks around the world.
DRL has been committed to drone racing safety since its inception. In 2016, DRL worked with The White House Office of Science and Technology (OSTP) to develop, standardize, and share drone racing safety protocols with the drone racing community. The league also recently joined the Commercial Drone Alliance, an organization focused on moving safe and responsible drone integration forward. At all DRL race and testing events, DRL activates safety measures, including tech-controls to terminate drones mid-flight, netting to protect pilots, crew and fans from drones, and stringent course closures to ensure nobody is near the drones while they are in the air. DRL will bring this safety process to their DRL Vegas Championship Race Presented by T-Mobile, the culminating, live-audience event of the 2021-22 DRL World Championship Season, on Wednesday, January 5, 2022 outside of T-Mobile Arena on the Las Vegas Strip.
“We’re honored the FAA has accredited DRL as the first UAS event organization and we’re excited to participate in the FAA’s PSP program to ensure safety is the priority at all UAS events. We look forward to sharing our expertise in drone-event safety more widely with the industry and continuing to work with venue organizers to curate safe and spectacular drone racing experiences through the most unique and incredible spaces,” said DRL COO Ashley Ellefson.
In line with the PSP, DRL educates the public on drone safety through various channels, including digital content and DRL SIM gaming integrations, and provides thought leadership to the broader community. For example, the DRL United States Air Force FPV 101 video series on Twitter immerses fans into the world of drone racing, providing safety tips and advice. The DRL SIM game has an in-depth flight training, teaching players how to safely level up their drone skills on Xbox, PlayStation, Steam, and Epic Games. The league also actively supports the FAA’s drone safety awareness initiatives, speaking on panels and promoting national drone-operation rules to inspire safe flying within the drone industry.
Tonight, as part of the 2021-22 DRL World Championship Season, elite DRL pilots will race through the U.S. Air Force Boneyard – Night Mode map on the DRL SIM at 8pm EST on NBCSN and Twitter.
About Drone Racing League
The Drone Racing League (DRL) is the world’s premier, professional drone racing property. The best drone pilots in the world fly in the league and millions of fans watch them race on NBC, NBCSN and Twitter. With groundbreaking technology and immersive, high-speed races through virtual and live events, DRL is creating a new era of sports, combining both esports and real-life competition.
Founded by Nicholas Horbaczewski in 2015, DRL is a privately held company headquartered in NYC. For more information, visit www.drl.io. To join the conversation, follow DRL on Facebook at facebook.com/thedroneracingleague, on Twitter @DroneRaceLeague, and on Instagram @thedroneracingleague.
]]>