The FAA Addresses Remote Tracking of UAS

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently announced that Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Identification and Tracking Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) chartered by the FAA has submitted its report and recommendations to the agency on technologies available to identify and track drones in flight and other associated issues.  The FAA charged the UAS-ID ARC with the following three objectives:

1. Identify, categorize and recommend available and emerging technology for the remote identification and tracking of UAS.

2. Identify the requirements for meeting the security and public safety needs of the law enforcement, homeland defense, and national security communities for the remote identification and tracking of UAS. The ARC should consider and evaluate the need to provide information that could assist in threat discrimination and determination of hostile intent.

3. Evaluate the feasibility and affordability of available technical solutions, and determine how well those technologies address the needs of the law enforcement and air traffic control communities. 

The FAA stated in its announcement that  the ARC’s recommendations and suggestions, which are fully detailed in the report, cover issues related to existing and emerging technologies, law enforcement and security, and implementation of remote identification and tracking. Although some recommendations were not unanimous, the group reached general agreement on most. Highlights of the recommendations include:

• The FAA should consider two methods for remote ID and tracking of drones: direct broadcast (transmitting data in one direction only with no specific destination or recipient) and (2) network publishing (transmitting data to an internet service or group of services). Both methods would send the data to an FAA-approved internet-based database.
• The data collected must include a unique identifier for unmanned aircraft, tracking information, and drone owner and remote pilot identification.
• The FAA should promote fast-tracked development of industry standards while a final remote ID and tracking rule is developed, potentially offering incentives for early adoption and relying on educational initiatives to pave the way to the implementation of the rule.
• The FAA should implement a rule in three stages, with an ultimate goal that all drones manufactured or sold within the United States that comply with the rule must be so labeled. The agency should allow a reasonable grace period to retrofit drones manufactured or sold before the final rule is effective.
• The FAA should coordinate any ID and tracking system with the existing air traffic control system and ensure it does not substantially increase workloads.
• The FAA should exempt drones operating under air traffic control or those operating under the agency’s discretion (public aircraft operations, security or defense operations, or with a waiver).
• The FAA must review privacy considerations, in consultation with privacy experts and other Federal agencies, including developing a secure system that allows for segmented access to the ID and tracking information. Within the system, only persons authorized by the FAA (e.g., law enforcement officials, airspace management officials, etc.) would be able to access personally identifiable information.

The FAA pointed out that, while the ARC reached consensus on most issues, there were dissenting opinions, primarily over to which drones the ID and tracking requirements should apply. Many of these dissenting opinions expressed concerns that exempting model aircraft operating under Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 would undermine the value of an ID and tracking requirement. Other dissenting opinions touched upon issues such as privacy and a lack of detail or consideration for ATC involvement.

The FAA indicated that will use the data and recommendations in the ARC report in crafting a proposed rule for public comment.  There was no indication when that proposed rulemaking would be issued.

The 50-page report with four appendices totaling 158 pages will be discussed in further detail in the next post.

Copyright Robert E Kelly, Esq.2016-2018

The Micro Unmanned Aircraft Systems Aviation Rulemaking Committee Addresses UAS Flight Operations Over People

The Micro Unmanned Aircraft Systems Aviation Rulemaking Committee (“ARC”), ARC Recommendations Final Report (“ARC Final Report”) was submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on April 1, 2016.  The mission of the ARC was to provide recommendations to the FAA Administrator on a regulatory framework for the classification and operation of micro UAS. Specifically, “The ARC was established specifically to address flight operations over people.”  See Footnote 1 of the ARC Final Report.   The ARC,  composed of members representing aviation stakeholders, including the UAS industry and other stakeholders, took their responsibility quite literally, by examining factors that would allow the flight over people without examining much else.  The report seems to focus entirely on risk factors, i.e., the analysis of impact  on people:

-p 5.  “The ARC agreed to establish risk thresholds based on the probability that direct impact with a person on the ground from a UAS would cause an injury that qualifies as level 3 and above on the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS)”

-p. 6. “Based on the information received, the ARC agreed that the metric used to quantify an acceptable probability of an AIS level 3 and above injury should be the impact energy of the small UAS, expressed in joules (J)/centimeter² (cm²). For a particular model of small UAS to qualify for operations over people, the manufacturer of that model will therefore have to certify that the product’s impact energy, as measured by a test established by an industry consensus standards body, does not, in the most probable failure modes, exceed a specified threshold. The intent of the test should be to establish the typical or likely impact energy of the most probable failure mode, and not simply the worst case condition.”

Consequently, the four categories of UAS (except for Category 1) are not based on size but on risk factors based on impact energy:

-Category 1 - for this category of UAS, the ARC recommends a maximum risk impact threshold of a 1% chance of AIS level 3 or greater injury, based on kinetic energy transfer at impact. The impact kinetic energy transfer standard and industry consensus standards are more fully explained in the Category 2 discussion. For simplicity, the ARC recommends using a weight-based measure instead of an impact kinetic energy measure for Category 1… The manufacturers will be required to indicate on the retail packaging the actual flying weight, or a statement that the aircraft weight is less than 250 grams. To provide flexibility in the future, the ARC does, however, recommend that the FAA invite industry to create voluntary, non-binding standards for product marking of UAS weighing 250 grams or less to make it clear to users that these UAS meet the requirement to operate over people.

Category 2 - Category 2 prescribes the performance standards and operational restrictions for operations over people that are conducted by unmanned aircraft that weigh more than 250 grams, but still present a 1% or less chance of “serious” injury (AIS level 3 or greater) to a person in the event of impact. The standard to determine whether the UAS meets the risk criteria will be an impact energy threshold based on information presented to the ARC, and calculated by the FAA in J/cm². During its meetings, the ARC was presented with information from Canada and the commercial space industry suggesting that this calculation would result in a value of 12 J/cm2 and that a quadcopter UAS weighing in the range of 4 to 5 pounds would qualify, depending on its design characteristics and operating instructions. The ARC recommends that the FAA calculate this exact impact energy threshold for the proposed flight-over-people rule.

Category 3 - Specifically, the ARC recommends that a small UAS be permitted to conduct limited operations over people (as defined below) if that UAS presents a 30% or lower chance of causing an AIS level 3 or greater injury upon impact with a person. The ARC recommends that the FAA also establish an impact energy threshold for this risk level based on information presented to the ARC, in J/cm².

Category 4 - Category 4 includes operations conducted by UAS operators that present the same risk as UAS conducting Category 3 operations over people, but without Category 3 operational limitations, and therefore require a risk mitigation plan specific to the operation (discussed below in Section 4.3.4). The industry consensus standards for this category are also the same as the standards for Category 3, but with the addition of the risk mitigation plan, which may include coordination with the FAA or event sponsor, municipality or local law enforcement, and pilot training, experience and certification commensurate with the increased risk, as determined by an industry consensus standard.

In addition to safety of persons on the ground, the recommended addition of engagement with appropriate third parties is intended to address concerns about the social acceptance of operating a UAS over large gatherings or events. It is the ARC’s recommendation that this facilitation of local engagement, while not intended as a delegation of jurisdiction over UAS operations, will be helpful to address community concerns.

I added the emphasis because this language establishes  that  a significant part of the Category 4 operations will be coordination with local law enforcement.  The FAA has been recommending this for some time, as the agency does not have the resources to police all UAS infractions themselves.  See  Law Enforcement Guidance For Suspected Unauthorized UAS Operations, January 8, 2015, here (“While the FAA retains the responsibility for enforcing Federal Aviation Regulations, including those applicable to the use of UAS, the agency also recognizes that state and local Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) are often in the best position to deter, detect, immediately investigate, and, as appropriate, pursue enforcement actions to stop unauthorized or unsafe UAS operations.”) 

The report leaves the development of industry standards to the future, in which industry stakeholders should have the opportunity to participate.  The final form of H.R. 636, the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2016 will dictate the methods by which those standards will be developed.

The FAA's New Aerospace Forecast Report Is Bullish On UAS

In a press release dated March 24, 2016, the FAA announced that it has released its annual Aerospace Forecast Report Fiscal Years 2016 to 2036 which finds a sustained increase in overall air travel during that period of time.  The Forecast also finds a sustained increase in the use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS).

The press release states that :

A key portion of the forecast focuses on projections for the growth in the use of unmanned aircraft, also known as drones. The FAA estimates small, hobbyist UAS purchases may grow from 1.9 million in 2016 to as many as 4.3 million by 2020.  Sales of UAS for commercial purposes are expected to grow from 600,000 in 2016 to 2.7 million by 2020.  Combined total hobbyist and commercial UAS sales are expected to rise from 2.5 million in 2016 to 7 million in 2020.

Predictions for small UAS used in the commercial fleet are more difficult to develop given the dynamic, quickly-evolving nature of the market. Both sales and fleet size estimates share certain broad assumptions about operating limitations for small UAS during the next five years: daytime operations, within visual line of sight, and a single pilot operating only one small UAS at a time.  The main difference in the high and low end of the forecasts is differing views on how those limitations will influence the widespread use of UAS for commercial purposes.

See the press release with a link to the Forecast here.

While government projections must always be taken with a grain of regulatory salt, it is important to note that sales of UAS for commercial purposes will not grow without the promulgation of the rules governing he commercial use of drones.  The eagerly –awaited Report of the Micro UAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee (“ARC”) which reportedly has been submitted to the FAA should provide a window into the strategy of the FAA to craft the new rules for commercial UAS and perhaps also shed some light on a possible timetable for the issuance of said rules, the rulemaking for which is now more than  thirteen months old.