- Explore
- Space
- Aviation
- Defense
- Magazine
- More Topics
- Additive Manufacturing
- Advanced Air Mobility
- Air Traffic Management and Control
- Aircraft Design
- Aircraft Propulsion
- Artificial Intelligence
- Autonomous Aircraft
- Balloons
- Climate Change
- Commercial Aircraft
- Commercial Spaceflight
- Communications Satellites
- Cybersecurity
- Earth Sciences
- Earth-observing satellites
- General Aviation
- Human Spaceflight
- Launch Vehicles
- Materials and Structures
- Military Aircraft
- Modeling and Simulation
- Public Policy
- R&D
- Rocket Propulsion
- Small Satellites
- Space Economy
- Space Safety
- Space Science
- Spacecraft Design
- Spacecraft Propulsion
- Supersonic Aircraft
- Sustainability
- Systems Engineering
- Training and Simulation
- Uncrewed Aircraft
- Uncrewed Spacecraft
- Weather Satellites
Stay Up to Date
Submit your email address to receive the latest industry and Aerospace America news.
The long-awaited draft regulation was due in September
The U.S. drone industry is growing anxious that a draft FAA regulation that would permit them to routinely fly their aircraft beyond line of sight has yet to be released, even though congressional language mandated FAA do so by September.
Since at least 2022, companies and organizations including the nonprofit Commercial Drone Alliance have called for FAA to release this proposed set of rules, which would be known as Part 108 of the federal code that deals with aeronautics and space. That same year, an FAA advisory committee released a report recommending the creation of such a regulation.
I reached out to FAA’s press office for an update on the draft regulation and received this reply on March 14: “We don’t have anything new to share on this.” Once the draft is published in the Federal Register as a formal Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, federal law requires a comment period of at least 60 days for the industry and public to weigh in.
For more about advanced air mobility, receive the True Mobility newsletter in your inbox.
Per the advisory committee’s recommendation, Part 108 would apply to small drones operating below 400 feet that impart “no more than 800,000 ft-lbs. of kinetic energy, which is analogous to a lower performance light sport aircraft based on weight and max level flight speed,” the report reads. Examples of such aircraft include the CubCrafters Carbon Cub SS made in the U.S. and the Tecnam P92 Echo made in Italy.
The intent is to help standardize beyond visual line of sight, or BVLOS, operations, which FAA today authorizes on a case-by-case basis via waivers. Under Part 108, FAA would shift away from approving individual flights, instead authorizing operators and specific drones by issuing a type certificate or a special airworthiness certificate for any design that meets the requirements. This would permit more complex and far-reaching drone flights — for example, a single remote operator overseeing the simultaneous delivery of consumer goods or medications by multiple drones.
The advisory committee recommended Part 108 also require detect-and-avoid cameras or similar sensors, along with certification and training requirements for pilots and modifications to right-of-way rules.
In October, shortly after the original deadline for the release of the draft regulation, the Commercial Drone Alliance issued a statement warning that additional delays “risk stalling an industry that is poised to bring immense safety, economic and societal benefits to the United States.” In February, Lisa Ellman, the alliance director, testified before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Aviation that deadlines for Part 108 and other regulations “have been ignored at the expense of the drone industry and the American public.”
Ellman and the alliance say that Part 108 could address privacy concerns expressed by the general public by requiring and enabling better tracking of drones and the routes they plan to take. “We expect the BVLOS rule will improve electronic conspicuity for everyone in the airspace, and provide a framework for third parties to provide services that help the government more effectively link drones in flight to responsible parties on the ground,” she told the committee in her submitted testimony.
Ongoing delays “could harm the domestic drone industry and U.S. global leadership in advanced aviation,” Ellman told me by email in December.
It’s important that Part 108 clarify what is needed to safely operate fleets of drones over populated areas, where the bulk of deliveries would occur, says Andreas Raptopoulos, founder and CEO of Matternet. The California drone manufacturer has an FAA type certificate for its M2 drone, mostly for delivery and inspection work, and customer flights are authorized under a Part 135 certificate for operations. However, depending on the location, Matternet often must still obtain a waiver to fly BVLOS, Raptopoulos told me, because routine operations are not yet permitted except for a few experimental corridors FAA has authorized.
“We need a BVLOS rule that’s very clear and applies nationally, because that’s really when you can give the predictability to our commercial partners and investors,” he said. “The drone delivery industry is like a compressed spring right now because there’s investment capital waiting in the wings. Once we get the clarity, this space is going to boom.”
Standardizing BVLOS flights could benefit more than commercial operations. For instance, Dan Macchiarella, a professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University’s Daytona Beach campus, wants to use drones to conduct environmental surveys. Part 108 would allow him to fly drones with greater ease and more regularly over populated areas.
Macchiarella runs the COASTech survey, which flies senseFly eBee X drones equipped with visible light cameras and spectrometers to monitor sea turtle populations and toxic algae along Central Florida’s Atlantic coast. Currently, he must apply for waivers to fly the drones over coastal waters and lagoons.
“Our waivers require visual observers to spot aircraft that may be flying low, such as military craft or Coast Guard, which might not otherwise show up on our monitors,” Macchiarella told me.
“These [BVLOS] regulations have been a long time coming. They would broaden my options and eliminate some paperwork,” he said.
Some experts I spoke to said that although Part 108 will not apply to larger aircraft like the coming passenger air taxis, the regulation could set a precedent for future ones that would govern the ability to fly passenger aircraft autonomously beyond the sight of a remote operator or monitor.
Others, like Jon Lovegren, head of autonomy at California-based Wisk, believe they’ll be fine without Part 108. Lovegren said Wisk is confident that it can obtain its certificate for airline passenger operations under FAA’s existing Part 135, even though plans call for having no pilot on board its electric aircraft.
“We will meet much more rigorous design and development requirements, much like commercial aircraft today,” he told me. “So our path, I think, is less reliant upon a Part 108 rule set. But, even though Part 108 is not a direct part of our strategy, I personally would like to see it progress.”
About paul brinkmann
Paul covers advanced air mobility, space launches and more for our website and the quarterly magazine. Paul joined us in 2022 and is based near Kennedy Space Center in Florida. He previously covered aerospace for United Press International and the Orlando Sentinel.
Related Posts
Stay Up to Date
Submit your email address to receive the latest industry and Aerospace America news.