Download UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS BEYOND VISUAL LINE ... and more Summaries Aviation in PDF only on Docsity!

UNMANNED AIRCRAFT

SYSTEMS

BEYOND VISUAL LINE OF SIGHT

AVIATION RULEMAKING

COMMITTEE

MARCH 10, 2022

FINAL REPORT

FR 2.2 – Non-Shielded Low Altitude UAS BVLOS – ADSB Equipped Crewed Aircraft Have Right of

• I. Background
• II. Executive Summary
• III. Chairs’ Comments
• IV. ARC Charter Summary
  • A. ARC Objectives
  • B. ARC Tasks
• V. Guiding Principles
  • A. Safety
  • B. Social Benefits
• VI. ARC Activities and Outputs
  • A. Risk Management
    • OPERATION RISK MATRIX – OPERATION LEVELS AND MITIGATIONS
    • 1. Acceptable Level of Risk..............................................................................................................
    • 2. Strategic & Technical Risk Mitigation
    • 3. Risk Mitigation Using Third-Party Services
  • B. Operating Rules...............................................................................................................................
    • 1. Detect and Avoid & Well Clear....................................................................................................
    • 2. Collision Avoidance, Conspicuity and Maneuverability
  • C. Right-of-Way Rules for Low Altitude Operations............................................................................
    • 1. Low Altitude Operations
    • 2. Non-Shielded Low Altitude UAS BVLOS – ADSB Equipped Crewed Aircraft Have Right of Way.
    • 3. Non-Shielded Low Altitude UA BVLOS – UA Have Right of Way.....................................................
    • 4. Shielded Operations – UA Have Right of Way
    • 5. Airport & Heliport Requirements for Low Altitude UAS BVLOS Operations...................................
    • 6. Regulatory Structure & Other Regulatory Amendments
• VII. Qualification Standards
  • A. Kinetic Energy
  • C. Qualification of Aircraft and Systems
• VIII. Automation Risk Matrix Overview
  • AUTOMATION / AUTOMATED FLIGHT RULES RISK MATRIX
  • A. Uncrewed Aircraft Operator Qualifications
• IX. Public Interest Considerations
  • A. Market Drivers & Market Organization
  • B. Environmental Considerations........................................................................................................
    • 1. Environmental Benefits of Uncrewed Aircraft
    • 2. NEPA Background
    • 3. ARC Supports a Finding of No Significant Impacts (FONSI) for UAS BVLOS Rule
    • 4. Environmental Justice
    • 5. Noise Considerations
  • C. Privacy & Security Considerations
    • 1. Privacy & Transparency...................................................................................................................
    • 2. Physical Security..............................................................................................................................
    • 3. Cybersecurity
    • 4. Operator Authentication.............................................................................................................
    • 5. HAZMAT
  • D. Industry Needs....................................................................................................................................
    • 2. Legislation
    • 3. Economic Authority
    • 4. Spectrum-Related Issues.............................................................................................................
    • 5. Ambiguity Around Intergovernmental Jurisdictional Roles
    • 6. Counter-UAS Issues
    • 7. International Harmonization
    • 8. Executive Branch Leadership on UAS Issues
    • 9. FAA Extension Act – Section
    • 10. Network Remote ID Implementation
    • 11. Public Perception
    • 12. Research & Development
• X. ARC Recommendations Intent, Rationale and Approach
  • A. Air & Ground Risk Recommendations
    • AG 2.1 – Acceptable Level of Risk
    • AG 2.2 – Risk Based UA Characteristics & Operating Environment
    • AG 2.3 – Fly to Rule Without Waivers.................................................................................................
    • AG 2.4 – Voluntary Reporting with the UAS ASRS
    • AG 2.5 – HAZMAT Carriage
    • AG 2.6 – Operations Over People
    • AG 2.7 – Minimum Capabilities List
  • AG 2.8 – Support Innovation and Emerging Technology through R&D
  • AG 2.9 – Incorporate UA into Existing Surveys or Develop a UA Survey for Safety Data
• B. Flight Rules Recommendations.......................................................................................................
  • FR 2.1 – Detect and Avoid & Well Clear
  • Way
  • FR 2.3 – Non-Shielded Low Altitude UAS BVLOS – UA Have Right of Way
  • FR 2.4 – UA Has Right of Way for Shielded Operations
  • FR 2.5 – Increase UA Awareness Among Crewed Aircraft Pilots
  • FR 2.6 – Amend Pre-Flight Action to Include UA Pilots.......................................................................
  • FR 2.7 – Amendments to Minimum Safe Altitudes to Facilitate Low Altitude Operations
  • FR 2.8 – Extended Visual Line of Sight
  • FR 2.9 – Visual Observer to Support BVLOS
• C. Aircraft and Systems Recommendations
  • AS 2.1 – Process for Qualification of UA and UAS...............................................................................
  • Table AS1.............................................................................................................................................
  • AS 2.2 – UA Maintenance, Repair, and Modification
  • Table AS2.............................................................................................................................................
  • AS 2.3 – UA and AE Software Qualification
  • Table AS3...........................................................................................................................................
  • AS 2.4 – Noise Certification Requirements
  • Table AS4...........................................................................................................................................
  • AS 2.5 – Qualification of the Associated Elements for UAS
  • Table AS5...........................................................................................................................................
  • AS 2.6 – Declarations of Compliance
  • Table AS6...........................................................................................................................................
  • AS 2.7 – Special Airworthiness Certificate for UAS Under Part
  • AS 2.8 – UAS Repairperson Certification...........................................................................................
  • AS 2.9 – Production Certificate Not Required if Declaring to an LSA Standard
  • AS 2.10 – Compliance Audits by Third Party Test Organizations
• D. Operator Qualifications Recommendations
  • OQ 2.1 – Create New Rule Part for UAS BVLOS Pilots & Operators
  • OQ 2.2 – Training and Qualification Based on Levels of Automation
  • OQ 2.3 – Enable Limited BVLOS for Part 107 Remote Pilots with Small UAS Rating
  • OQ 2.4 – Expand Knowledge Test for Remote Pilot Certificate with Small UAS Rating
  • OQ 2.5 – Establish New BVLOS Rating for Remote Pilot Certificate
  • OQ 2.6 – Incorporate Existing Knowledge Areas into Part 107 Remote Pilot Exam
  • OQ 2.7 – Additional Knowledge and Exam Areas for 1-to-Many Operations...................................
  • OQ 2.8 – Pathways to Remote Pilot Certificate with BVLOS Rating
  • OQ 2.9 – Online Training Option for Remote Pilot Certification
  • OQ 2.10 –Training, Qualification, Currency, and Operational Control
  • OQ 2.11 – Remote Air Carrier & Remote Commercial Operating Certificate
  • OQ 2.12 –Threshold for Remote Air Carrier or Remote Operating Certificate
  • OQ 2.13 – Operating Requirements for Certificated Remote Air Carriers & Remote Operators
  • OQ 2.14 – Certification & Operating Requirements for Agricultural Remote Aircraft Operations
  • OQ 2.15 – Operational Control for 1-To-Many UAS BVLOS Flights
  • OQ 2.16 – UAS Pilot Medical Qualification
  • OQ 2.17 – Remote Pilot in Command of UA for Compensation or Hire
  • OQ 2.18 – Applicability to All Aircraft, Including Public Aircraft
  • OQ 2.19 – Operations Near Sensitive Areas or Critical Infrastructure
  • OQ 2.20 – Carriage of HAZMAT by Remote Air Carrier or Remote Operating Certificate Holders
• E. Third-Party Services Recommendations
  • TP 2.1 – Regulatory Scheme for 3PSP in Support of UAS BVLOS
  • TP 2.2 – FAA & NASA to Study Whether Third Party Services Should be Mandatory
• F. Environmental Recommendations
  • ER 2.1 – Finding of No Significant Impact for UAS BVLOS Rule
  • ER 2.2 – Streamlined NEPA Review...................................................................................................
  • ER 2.3 – Individual BVLOS Approvals Should Not Be Subject to Environmental Review
  • ER 2.4 – Interim Pathway for BVLOS Operations Pending Rulemaking
  • ER 2.5 – NEPA Interpretation that Supports Expeditious Rulemaking
• G. General & Procedural Recommendations
  • GP 2.1 – Societal Benefits
  • GP 2.2 – Public Perception
  • GP 2.3 – Advisory Circular Should Be Developed Once Rule is Adopted
  • GP 2.4 – Recommendations Should Influence Waivers & Exemptions Pending Rulemaking
  • GP 2.5 – International Harmonization of Regulatory Processes
    • GP 2.6 – Stakeholder Management with Federal, Tribal, State, and Local Governments
    • GP 2.7 – FAA Participation in Industry Standards Organizations......................................................
    • GP 2.8 – Executive Branch Leadership to Ensure Multi-Agency Resourcing & Collaboration
    • GP 2.9 – Renew the Preventing Emerging Threats Act to Counter UAS Misuse
    • GP 2.10 – FAA Extension Act
    • GP 2.11 – DOT Economic Authority and Citizenship
    • GP 2.12 – Spectrum Related Issues...................................................................................................
    • GP 2.13 – Network Remote ID
    • GP 2.14 – Cybersecurity
    • GP 2.15 – Operation Matrix as Guidance Material Pending Rulemaking
• XI. Proposed Regulatory Text
• XII. Proposed Modifications to Existing Regulatory Text
  • Table TP2...............................................................................................................................................
• XIII. Proposed New 14 CFR Part
  • Subpart A - General...............................................................................................................................
  • Subpart B - Operating Rules
  • Subpart C - Certification: Remote Pilots
  • Subpart D - Qualification: Procedures for Uncrewed Aircraft and Systems for BVLOS
  • Subpart F - Operating Requirements: Remote Air Carriers and Remote Commercial Operators
  • Subpart G - Agricultural Remote Aircraft Operations
• XIV. Definitions and Glossary of Terms
  • B. Abbreviations and Acronyms
  • C. Definitions

    • A
    • B
    • C
    • D
    • E
    • F
    • G
  • H
  • I
  • L
  • M
  • N
  • O
  • P
  • R
  • U
  • S
  • T
  • V
• Appendix A – Future Considerations
  • 1. Droneports
  • 2. Air Traffic Control Services for Uncrewed Aircraft
  • 3. First Person View
  • 4. Operations – Non-Compliance
  • 5. Urban Air Mobility (UAM)
• Appendix B - Recommendation List
  • Air & Ground Risk Recommendations
  • Flight Rules Recommendations.........................................................................................................
  • Aircraft & Systems Recommendations
  • Operator Qualifications Recommendations
  • Third Party Services Recommendations
  • Environmental Recommendations
  • General Recommendations
• Appendix C - Suggested Regulation by Recommendation....................................................................
  • Air & Ground Risk Recommendations
  • Flight Rules Recommendations.........................................................................................................
  • Aircraft & Systems Recommendations
  • Operator Qualifications Recommendations
  • Third Party Services Recommendations
  • Environmental Recommendations

General Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 223 Appendix D – Technical Research ......................................................................................................... 227 Appendix E - ARC Member Responses and Voting Results ................................................................... 227 Appendix F - ARC Member Ballots and Supporting Materials .............................................................. 233 Appendix G - ARC Members By Working Group (Phase 1 and Phase 2) ............................................... 233

I. Background

It is widely understood that the safety and efficiency benefits of commercial Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS) are significant. For example, commercial UA operations provide countless public benefits and essential services to the American public, including delivering critical supplies, life-saving medicines, and commercial products. UA are also helping to improve safety and efficiency by inspecting critical infrastructure at scale, enhancing access to essential goods and services, connecting communities, and supporting first responders.

Notwithstanding these benefits for the American public, current Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations do not enable the domestic UA beyond visual line-of-sight (BVLOS) industry to scale and achieve meaningful results from those benefits. The current rules also do not reflect the competencies needed to safely operate highly automated UAS, which hinders the ability to expand UAS BVLOS operations to achieve the maximum societal and economic benefits for the American public. Safely realizing these benefits at scale should be the goal of any rulemaking initiatives for routine BVLOS integration. The industry is ready and willing to provide resources, technology, and expertise to scale BVLOS; and many companies, communities, and industrial sectors have invested substantial resources in developing UAS technologies to realize these benefits. It is important that a new regulatory framework be established to capitalize on UAS, enhance safety, and promote sustainable transportation solutions— all while ensuring America’s continued leadership in aviation innovation.

In June 2016, the FAA issued Part 107 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR Part 107), the final rule for “Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems.”,^1 Part 107 set forth requirements for routine operation of small uncrewed aircraft (UA) in the National Airspace System (NAS), but did not include requirements for UAS design, manufacturing, or production. Instead, it limited small UA operations to certain areas (e.g., at or below 400 feet in Class G airspace) and conditions (e.g., operations within visual line-of-sight (VLOS)), with the intent to prevent UA from interfering with other aircraft in flight or posing an undue hazard to people or property on the ground. This rule was a critical step toward normalizing low-risk VLOS small UAS operations in the United States.

Uncrewed aircraft flying beyond an operator’s visual line-of-sight present unique challenges to the FAA’s existing regulatory framework. Most aviation regulations that would apply to UA operations (besides Part 107) assume an aircraft with an onboard pilot who is responsible for avoiding other aircraft. Not only do UA lack an onboard pilot, but even a remote pilot pushes the boundaries of the traditional

(^1) 81 FR 42063 - Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems - Content Details - 2016- (govinfo.gov). https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/FR-2016-06-28/2016-

give UA right of way in Shielded Areas; give UA right of way over crewed aircraft that are not equipped with ADS-B or TABS in Non-Shielded Low Altitude Areas; and give crewed aircraft that are equipped with ADS-B or TABS (and broadcasting their position) right of way in Non-Shielded Low Altitude Areas.

Third, the ARC recommends an approach to operator qualification that would extend Part 107, Remote Pilot Certificate with Small UAS Rating, to cover topics associated with Extended Visual Line of Sight (EVLOS) and shielded UAS operations. The recommendation creates a new Remote Pilot certificate rating to cover BVLOS operations beyond the scope of the extended Part 107 rating. The examination for both ratings would consist of a knowledge test on relevant areas, while practical training and qualifications would be tied to new Remote Air Carrier and Remote Operating certificates, which would be required for most commercial 1-to-many operations. The qualifications would be based on specific UA systems, Use Cases, and operational restrictions.

Fourth, the ARC recommends that the FAA establish a new BVLOS Rule which includes a process for qualification of UA and UAS, applicable to aircraft up to 800,000 ft-lb of kinetic energy (in accordance with the Operation Risk Matrix).

Finally, the ARC recommends that the FAA adopt a non-mandatory regulatory scheme for third party services to be used in support of UAS BVLOS operations. In addition to its recommendations, the ARC identified certain issues relevant to UAS BVLOS operations that are beyond this ARC’s scope, but which are identified in this report as considerations for future ARCs to address. Similarly, the ARC also identified several issues that are beyond the FAA’s scope of authority. However, these recommendations are in the interest of providing a full framework of actions and policies to promote safe and widespread adoption of UAS BVLOS activities.

III. Chairs’ Comments

The use of UAS continues to grow and evolve globally. The technology has proven to provide many societal and economic benefits and can be used as a critical tool to support numerous use cases and public safety efforts. These include, but are not limited to, inspections of critical infrastructure, options for industrial applications, and operations involving the delivery of medical supplies and packages to consumers. Additionally, UAS technology has proven to be a key component in supporting numerous public safety efforts including aiding with disaster recovery, wildfire response, and search and rescue missions. The co-chairs of the UAS-BVLOS ARC were proud to lead conversations around the technical and regulatory challenges toward safely integrating UAS into the NAS.

Prior initiatives to integrate UAS include: the Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) ARC (2008), the UAS Registration Task Force (2015), the Micro UAS ARC (2016), the UAS in Controlled Airspace ARC (2017), the UAS Remote Tracking and ID ARC (2017), and numerous advisory recommendations produced by the FAA/DOT Drone Advisory Committee (recently renamed the Advanced Aviation Advisory Committee) and the Drone Safety Team. The work and expertise devoted to these efforts has resulted in a regulatory structure that facilitates very basic visual line of sight (VLOS) operations by rule.

When the FAA issued the Part 107 rule in 2016 for “Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems,” it was an important first step in normalizing UA operations by rule and facilitating UA

operations that were previously only achieved via waivers and exemptions. Encouragingly, the public/private partnerships that ensued in the wake of the Part 107 Rule brought together state, local, and tribal governments with private sector entities “ to test and evaluate the integration of civil and public drone operations .” 3 Together, these participants demonstrated the potential social, economic, and environmental values associated with UA operations, which included BVLOS operations conducted under waiver. These events were an important validation of the overall safety of UAS BVLOS operations. In fact, out of the many flights conducted under Part 107, Part 91, and Part 135 to date, there have been zero fatalities and only one serious injury attributable to these operations.

It has become evident that the current aviation regulatory framework is not capable of accommodating UA operations at the existing levels, and certainly not at the levels anticipated as the industry grows. Consequently, regulatory changes are necessary to support industry growth. Now is the time to take progressive and deliberate steps towards creating scalable UAS BVLOS rules and pathways to support complex operations. The industry can capitalize on the knowledge gained from previously granted waivers and exemptions, and the demonstrated safety record, to fully realize the societal and economic benefits the technology presents.

Considering the expansive opportunities UAS enable, the ARC was comprised of a diverse community of experts to ensure recommendations were considered from a variety of stakeholders. This includes academia and standards bodies; critical infrastructure owners and operators; infrastructure security; privacy groups; state, local, tribal, territorial interests – including environment and equity considerations; technology and network infrastructure interests; traditional aviation associations; and UAS associations. All members were invited to join Subgroups focused on various issue areas, leading to thousands of hours of meetings and draft review and comment for the collective group. Overall, the ARC supported 10 Plenary sessions and at least 7^4 commenting opportunities. The ARC timeframe was extended an additional 3 months to properly consider and respond to representative viewpoints.

While the COVID-19 pandemic made in-person meetings for the full ARC impossible, the leadership team took numerous steps to ensure a transparent process in which members had ample opportunities to weigh in on issues and play an essential role in shaping the recommendations, while working in a virtual environment. The ARC kicked off on June 24, 2021, and presented the schedule and tasks to accomplish in a 6-month period. This included full plenaries throughout the process to provide updates and allow all members to discuss and comment on the ARC’s work at different stages of its development and refinement. In addition, leaders for each Working Group conducted hundreds of hours of meetings at the working group level, as well as follow-up discussions with individual members regarding specific issues when warranted.

(^3) For example, the UAS Integration Pilot Program (now BEYOND focused on BVLOS) has created a meaningful dialogue on the balance between local and national interests related to UAS integration, and provided actionable information to the USDOT on expanded and universal integration of UAS into the National Airspace System. UAS Integration Pilot Program (faa.gov). https://www.faa.gov/uas/programs_partnerships/completed/integration_pilot_program/ (^4) This includes two Phase 1 drafts published for comment, and five Phase 2 drafts published for comment through Dec 17, 2021. This does not include the numerous partial drafts created by the three Phase 1 working groups and five Phase 2 working groups that provided the content for the seven major drafts published for ARC-wide comment.

this the right time for BVLOS,” but rather “is time, technology and public benefit passing us by because we have not facilitated safe and secure BVLOS operations?”

IV. ARC Charter Summary

The charter established the Unmanned Aircraft Systems Beyond Visual Line-of-Sight Operations Aviation Rulemaking Committee, which is sponsored by the Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety. The charter outlines the ARC’s organization, responsibilities, and tasks.

A. ARC Objectives

The UAS BVLOS ARC’s purpose is to make recommendations to the FAA for performance-based regulatory requirements to normalize safe, scalable, economically viable, and environmentally advantageous UAS BVLOS operations that are not under positive air traffic control (ATC). The ARC’s recommendations should support the following concepts of operation: long-line linear infrastructure inspections, industrial aerial data gathering, small package delivery, and precision agriculture operations, including crop spraying. The ARC was not tasked with addressing aircraft or operations carrying passengers or crew, nor did it address the integration of operations for which Air Traffic Services (ATS) are provided.

B. ARC Tasks

Identify safety and environmental considerations for UAS BVLOS operations, accounting for the security needs of the United States government. The ARC should consider economic, environmental, public health, and safety benefits of enabling UAS BVLOS operations within the scope of the ARC’s objectives. At a minimum, the ARC must consider:

• Safety objectives of the UA operation and the risk it presents to other aircraft and people and property on the ground.
• Concepts of UAS BVLOS operations and their potential environmental impacts across environmental resource areas (e.g., noise, emissions, endangered species, visual).
• Approaches to evaluating community response to UA noise, and identification of concepts of operations that may have limited or no community noise exposure.
• Whether and how UAS BVLOS operations can enhance environmental justice.
• Solutions that address security concerns related to BVLOS operations.
• Societal benefits for UAS BVLOS operations.

Recommend and provide rationale for requirements to enable UAS BVLOS operations, including:

• Defining the expected future market participants and their responsibilities inthese operations.
• Considering the breadth of aircraft operations in low-altitude airspace, outside of areas designated for positive air traffic control (operations with and without persons on board).
• Enabling routine operations of aircraft where no pilot is on-board with a visual reference, outside of Visual Flight Rules or Instrument Flight Rules.
• Recommending performance-based regulations that enable and reward continued improvements in technology.
• Describing a regulatory framework for the FAA to oversee the integration of UA and the operation of the

integrated UAS, including initial qualification and continued operational safety.

• Addressing the use of highly automated UAS, for which the individual operating the UA defines the mission and initiates the operation, but has no access to flight controls.
• Identifying the level of FAA involvement in certification and oversight that is appropriate to address safety and environmental concerns.
• Determining whether and how to amend the current regulatory framework to include new BVLOS regulations.
• Identifying potential incremental benefits, savings, and costs of recommendations where possible, including quantitative data and estimates, qualitative benefit-cost description, and compliance trade-offs.

The ARC took a holistic approach in making its recommendations. It considered the safety of UA operations, as well as the safety benefits that would be derived in crewed aircraft operations. The recommendations are supported by empirical studies and data from trusted sources, such as the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). These recommendations and their rationale are more fully discussed in Section V.A. Safety below. The ARC members considered it essential to understand both the promise and potential problems associated with UAS BVLOS operations. This was necessary to develop recommendations that were in the public interest, but also addressed matters of public concern. To that end, the first Phase of the ARC focused on understanding the landscape and developing a pathway forward. They began their efforts with the following questions:

What are the UAS BVLOS use cases? What are the environmental impacts and potential environmental justice benefits of BVLOS operations? What risks are created to other aircraft, people and property on the ground by these operations? How can we identify security risks that may be introduced by the operations? How can we address these safety, environmental, and security risks to realize the economic and societal benefits, without compromising public safety and national security? How is the market organized and funded, and what does that mean for the economic viability of the industry? How significant are the societal benefits of these operations for both industry and the public, and what is the opportunity cost of delaying these benefits? What does industry need to do to scale UAS BVLOS operations, and how is scalability affected by current approaches to regulation? How should the FAA define priorities for the rule, including justifying its need for a risk-based, performance-based, flexible rule that generally enables a wide variety of beneficial BVLOS use cases? What are the significant issues presented by the current regulatory framework that must be resolved to enable these operations?

In tackling these questions, the BVLOS ARC chose to conduct its work in two phases. Three workgroups were established during Phase 1 of the ARC to examine these issues:

Additional areas included how participants relate and work together, the range of BVLOS use cases, and industry diversity.

Subgroup 1.2.2 Societal Benefits was tasked with identifying and documenting the societal benefits of UAS BVLOS operations. Societal benefits include both the benefits to those stakeholders with a direct and immediate economic interest as well as the broader benefits to the public. To advance with a BVLOS rulemaking effort, the Subgroup understood that the FAA must be able to demonstrate to the interagency community, as well as to the public, that the benefits of updated regulation exceed the costs, and that there is a net positive benefit to society. To lay the proper foundation, the Society Benefits Subgroup worked to identify, quantify, and rationalize compelling and defensible examples of benefits for society associated with UAS BVLOS operations.

Subgroup 1.2.3 Industry Needs focused on identifying and rationalizing what the industry needs to scale UAS BVLOS operations, such that the industry ultimately will be able to provide the societal benefits identified by the Societal Benefits Subgroup. This Subgroup recognized that some needs would require regulatory reform, while other industry needs such as physical infrastructure could be provided by industry. Phase 2 captured many of these ideas through their work on the Automation Matrix and Third- Party Services. Other related recommendations can be found in the “Industry Needs” section of this report.

Working Group 1.3 was intended to provide scope and focus to the Working Groups in Phase 2. To that end, the group developed a series of “Problem Statements” to be addressed by Phase 2. The identification of issues greatly assisted the Phase 2 team with refining the scope of work. The Phase 2 responses to these issues are captured in the individual Phase 2 Working Group reports^8 and reflected in the overall ARC recommendations.

V. Guiding Principles

Safety and societal benefits were the guiding principles of the ARC’s work. The need to develop safe, pragmatic, and standardized approaches for BVLOS is critical to support the benefits and future of UAS operations and technology. The ARC sought to keep these two considerations front of mind as it worked to develop a framework for integrating UAS BVLOS operations into the NAS and fully realizing all that this technology has to offer.

A. Safety

The Safety Subgroup was tasked to report to the broader ARC on the safety objectives of BVLOS operations, particularly from the public’s point of view. The Safety framework for BVLOS would be predicated on the actual, perceived, and measurable risk. Therefore, it was essential to assess societal acceptance of risk and reward, and how it should be measured, to establish an acceptable level of risk that would drive the ARC’s work and its recommendations. Traditional frameworks for evaluating aviation risk contemplate the presence of individuals onboard an aircraft. However, UA do not have pilots or passengers onboard, so the risk to human life stems from the UA potentially colliding with a traditional aircraft or a collision with an individual on the ground. Given the differences between

8 Annex.

traditional aviation and UA, Working Group 1.1 believed the ARC and the FAA ought to consider the following factors to determine an ALR for UAS BVLOS operations:

• Public Perception: The public’s belief or opinion about the benefits and risks of UAS BVLOS operations. Fear of new technology is not unique to UA, and public perception typically evolves as people are educated about a new technology’s benefits. UA stakeholders should work together to educate the public about the many UA benefits. It should also be noted that there is a level of excitement from the general public about UA and the benefits BVLOS operations could bring to their communities as evidenced by the number of applicants nationally that have expressed an interest in participating in the UAS Integration Pilot Program (IPP).
• Aviation and Non-Aviation Risk Analogues : The relevance of data and research released by FAA, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Department of Transportation (DOT),^9 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and other agencies that could help inform overall levels of safety associated with UAS BVLOS operations, including impacts to safety which extend beyond the NAS. For example, acceptable levels of risk for ground vehicles, autopilots, general aviation, and commercial space transportation.
• Public Benefits of UA Operations : The economic, public health, environmental and societal benefits of BVLOS operations, which must be weighed against any real or perceived increases in risk to the NAS.
• Risk Transference : Where BVLOS operations replace higher risk operations, as well as where risk can be transferred to industry through accountability, liability, and insurance requirements.

B. Social Benefits

Traditional approaches to safety assessment, which assume that there are people onboard, are not appropriate for UA, and there are currently no established UA safety targets. A UA accident in an unpopulated area is assumed to provide minimal risk to persons or structures on the ground. Similar considerations could be given to UA that collide with property, especially the property of the operator. In such an instance there is little to no risk of injury to persons on the ground. For these reasons, the FAA’s focus must be on protecting individuals on the ground and preventing collisions with crewed aircraft, not on preventing a UA crash. Consideration should be given to risk to first responders in the aftermath of a UA crash and the mitigations that UA can provide.

Current FAA policies were designed for crewed aircraft and did not contemplate the UA marketplace or UA operations on a large scale. Given the novelty of the policy and regulatory issues raised by UA operations, FAA staff often need to elevate risk issues and decisions on a case-by-case basis, which has resulted in delayed and inconsistent outcomes. This impacts the FAA’s efficiency and limits its ability to provide timely responses to regulatory applications. Moreover, as noted by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the FAA lacks transparency and collaboration with industry^10 and the public about

(^9) U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. https://data.bts.gov/browse?q=fatalities&sortBy=relevance

(^10) See General Accounting Office, UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS - FAA Could Strengthen Its Implementation of a Drone Traffic Management System by Improving Communication and Measuring Performance , https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-165.pdf, (Jan. 2021).

The first step was the development of categories that could be used to accurately and efficiently describe various types of societal benefits that may be achieved through UAS BVLOS operations. The categories were comprehensive and reflected the current state of broader values recognized and accepted by society. They mirror the “Four Pillars” that are priorities for the current administration: economy , safety , environment, and equity. A set of use case examples were created and then used to validate the adequacy of this initial set of categories. After further analysis, the categories were expanded to include health and security benefits. It should be emphasized that while the use cases and operations have a clear and compelling societal benefit for one of the main categories, almost all UAS BVLOS operations have the potential for crosscutting societal benefits that would align with and across multiple categories. For example, a UAS BVLOS operation might simultaneously provide economic , safety and equity benefits.

The economic benefits category describes BVLOS missions and use cases that provide an economic benefit such as cost savings and expanded market opportunities. This category breaks down further into private and public economic benefits. A company using UAS BVLOS to reduce costs might be described as receiving a “private economic benefit”; whereas UAS BVLOS operations that add convenience, lower costs, or provide more access to products for consumers would be described as a “public economic benefit”. Ultimately, it was recognized that virtually all economic benefits examples could be classified as “public economic benefits”, since society at large ultimately benefits.

The safety category captures the benefits of BVLOS operations that result in improved safety either for an individual, group, or community. For example, using UAS BVLOS operations for infrastructure inspection tasks that previously would have required a human worker to operate in a dangerous or risky environment demonstrates a case of safety benefits for an individual worker. Public safety is another important category of safety benefits and refers to the use of UAS BVLOS operations by law enforcement to provide situational awareness in emergencies.

The security benefits category captures benefits of BVLOS operations such as monitoring the perimeter of a large critical infrastructure facility.

The environmental benefits category describes those BVLOS use cases where some type of benefit to the environment could be identified and quantified. For example, UAS BVLOS operations can perform helpful weather measurements or combat climate change. UAS operations themselves are also greener and cleaner than traditional fossil-fuel modes of transportation.

The health benefits category grew out of the realization that UAS BVLOS operations could potentially lead to opportunities to improve both individual and community health. The humanitarian work underway in Africa and elsewhere is an example of BVLOS missions that can improve health and health outcomes. For example, this category could involve UAS BVLOS delivery of vaccines or important medications.

Finally, the equity benefits category describes those operations that provide benefits or opportunities for traditionally disadvantaged communities. UAS BVLOS operations can be a potential “equalizer” of access to opportunities for previously disadvantaged areas, regions, and communities – including but not limited to the disability community.

All of these societal benefits are discussed in depth in the Phase 1 report. From the ARC’s perspective, one top line message clearly shines through: The societal benefits of UAS BVLOS operations are significant,

and in some cases very significant. The ARC recommendation to FAA and DOT is intended to achieve a wide range of both public and private benefits for consumers, businesses, and governments. (See ARC Recommendation below at GP 2.1).

VI. ARC Activities and Outputs

The UAS BVLOS ARC has taken a comprehensive approach to developing the recommendations. Phase 1 of the ARC focused on developing initial findings and guidelines for UAS BVLOS operations, while Phase 2 focused on establishing a risk framework that builds on the Phase 1 inputs and makes recommendations to enable BVLOS operations by rule. Under the proposed regulatory structure, BVLOS operators would be able to operate to the rule without the need for exemptions and waivers. The framework should also facilitate an interim operating pathway, allowing BVLOS operations to occur pending the rulemaking implementation.

The Phase 2 Working Groups met for several months to identify and assess the risks for their specific Focus Areas. They were guided by the following tenets in making their recommendations:

Air & Ground Risk – The ARC should develop a Risk Framework to oversee the operation and integration of UA in the NAS. UA operations enabled under a newly proposed BVLOS rule must meet an acceptable

level of risk. Qualitative and quantitative approaches to assess air and ground risks should be

implemented via the new regulations to enhance compliance and reduce risks to an acceptable level. Mitigations may be assessed using qualitative or quantitative methodologies (or a hybrid approach), depending on the operating environment and levels of operational risk. Industry consensus standards should be used as a Means of Compliance, which would be subject to FAA acceptance.

Aircraft and Systems – Qualification of UA should follow a risk continuum, aligned with the Risk Framework, with the goal of meeting the acceptable level of risk. Where safety can be achieved outside of the traditional airworthiness certification processes, qualification should be implemented through a framework based on FAA acceptance of a statement or declaration of compliance to an FAA-accepted means of compliance. Where additional oversight is appropriate, a similar compliance framework can be implemented through a new category of special airworthiness certificate.

Operator Qualifications – A certified Operator or a properly trained and certified remote pilot qualified for BVLOS flight operations should have responsibility for assessing the operational environment, interpreting rule language, understanding technologies critical to BVLOS, selecting a UAS appropriate for the operation, and determining if the system is in a condition for safe operation.

Automated Flight Rules – Automated Flight Rules (AFR) ensure that UAS operators understand the risks to other users operating in the same airspace. There is a need to develop training proportional to the risks of the operation and levels of autonomy of the aircraft to ensure operators understand aviation weather, changing environmental conditions, and the safety implications associated with allowing an operation to commence or continue after an adverse event or change in environmental conditions.