Matt Sloane Read the Entire FAA Part 108 NPRM So You Don’t Have To—Here’s What Actually Matters

DRONELIFE is pleased to present this guest post by Matt Sloane, co-founder and Chief Strategy Officer of SkyfireAI. As a prominent figure in the drone industry, Matt brings a wealth of expertise and firsthand experience to the table. Matt’s done the deep dive on the BVLOS NPRM: here’s his summary of what’s most important for drone operators and businesses to know. DRONELIFE neither accepts nor makes payment for guest posts.

by SkyfireAI co-founder and Chief Strategy Officer, Matt Sloane

There are few things that get me going in the morning more than reading 700 pages of government documents, but given the importance of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Part 108 to the drone industry, I figured this was the time to take one for the team.

What I found in those reams of material is not only a fascinating look at what the FAA envisions as the future of unmanned systems in American skies, but a roadmap that will truly allow us to leverage the power of drones for good.

First, a brief background. In the mid-2010s, we started with the “Section 333 exemption” process, which allowed us to start flying drones in the national airspace system for commercial purposes. It was clunky, it had a lot of crazy requirements (including needed a manned-aircraft pilots license to fly); but it got us started.

Then, in 2016, we got Part 107. A true framework for getting access to the airspace, complete with a pilot certification all its own, and a set of rules that we had to follow; but also with provisions for waiving those rules if it made sense from a safety standpoint.

After that, a complex mish-mash of waivers, exemptions and precedent-setting “test cases” emerged, and, although the process was (and still is) a labyrinth to navigate, if you know how to work it, you can make real progress.

That brings us to Part 108, which right now is a “proposed rule making.”

It’s important to point out that this rule is focused solely on operations beyond visual line of sight. Any operation where you intend to stay within line of sight will continue to operate under Part 107, even once the new rule goes into place. Public safety agencies will also be able to continue operating under Part 91 waivers (COAs/COWs); and not a lot changes for them if they don’t want the new permissions.

That said, Part 107 would no longer allow for any operations beyond line of sight once the new rule goes into effect, so if you want to fly BVLOS, you’d leave 107, and step into 108. (Note: BVLOS provisions for public safety agencies will likely continue to reside in Part 91 COAs/COWs, at least for now).

So, what does this proposed rule actually propose?

The first thing I noticed in reading the document is that there won’t be an individual pilot certification like we have with Part 107. Instead, the framework focuses on a “corporate responsibility model”, and puts the onus on operating companies to ensure their staff are trained and mission-ready.

This is a big deal because under Part 107, all of the responsibility fell to the individual, even if they were operating on behalf of a company. That made things like getting waivers for company-wide operations difficult – they all had to be in one person’s name, and therefore, became that person’s responsibility and liability.

Companies under Part 108 will have the option to go two routes – a 108 “permit” or a 108 “certificate;” each with their own set of rules and privileges.

Permits will focus on operations that are less risky, and therefore, require less oversight by the FAA.

They’ll be available in 8 categories:  Unmanned aircraft training, flight testing, demonstrations, package delivery, agricultural use, aerial surveying, civic interest (government-related functions) and recreation.

A company will apply for a permit in whatever category applies to them, and will be limited to operations in that category with each permit.

Under a permit, operations will be limited to areas with less-dense populations on the ground, and a company will be limited to operating a certain number of aircraft concurrently.

Specifically, 100 drones for package delivery, 25 drones for agriculture, surveying, civic interest, training and demos, and 1 aircraft for recreational use. There are no aircraft limits for testing purposes, but that testing will be limited to very sparsely populated areas.

If a company wants to do more than that, they’ll shift over to the other framework – certificated operations. To get a certificate means you’ll be operating more drones in more complex environments; and therefore, your operations are deemed higher risk.

As such, certificated operators will have more intense and more frequent oversight by the FAA.

Certificates can be obtained in 4 categories – package delivery, agricultural use, aerial surveying and civic interest (government-related functions).

The 108 framework also proposes higher weight limits for unmanned aircraft in 3 distinct categories: 55 pounds and under, 110 pounds and under and 1320 pounds and under. Which one applies to you will depend on which industry you’re operating in, and whether you decide to go with a permit or a certificate.

Some other big features of the proposed rules —

New Terms, New Players

The rule calls for the establishment of a new category of company – the Automated Data Service Provider (ADSP) – which would provide real-time data to operators in both classes.

ADSPs could monitor things like airspace, weather, real-time traffic and deconfliction, etc; and an operator would be required to push and pull data to and from ADSPs.

The rule did not, however, mandate that operators must use only certain providers, and in fact, specifically called out that companies could be their own ADSPs, provided they meet certain criteria. In my opinion, this is a smart move not to force people to spend money with only approved providers.

It also establishes the concepts of “strategic deconfliction” – using ADSPs to ensure flights aren’t in conflict with other operators’ planned flights – and “conformance monitoring” – making sure your drones alert you when they’re operating abnormally.

There is also a provision for sending those “off-nominal” alerts to others operating in the airspace, so everybody knows when something is going awry.

The rule calls for creating Part 146 for the purposes of regulating these ADSPs.

Population Density Categories

Each part of the rule and each industry has certain operating limitations, and many of them are based on a new category system for population density underneath the route of flight.

There are 5 categories – with Category 1 being the most sparsely populated areas and least controlled airspace; and Category 5 being the most dense.

Permitted users can only fly in areas up to Category 3 (think suburban areas, subdivisions, etc); which makes sense for residential package deliveries. If you want to go into Category 4 or 5 airspace, you’d likely need to go up to Certificated Operations rather than Permitted Operations.

Security

The document is very heavy on security of all types, which makes sense considering that this framework would allow for flying 1320 pound drones on long-range beyond line of sight missions.

The proposed rule has a heavy emphasis on cybersecurity – keeping computers, networks and communication links locked down tight – as well as physical security. It calls for limiting physical access to launch sites, prep areas and control rooms to only those personnel who need to be there.

It also includes provisions for TSA background checks for anybody who will be operating drones to include a check of criminal history, immigration status, and intelligence-related databases and watchlists.

Manufacturer Responsibilities

The rule puts a strong emphasis on manufacturers driving the limits of their drones, including limits on how fast they can fly, in what weather, how long and how far. These limits would all come from the drone maker rather than the FAA.

This means there’s not necessarily a speed limit like there was under Part 107, or weather minimums. They call out that the manufacturers are the ones who know what their drones are capable of, and operators must stay within those limits to be compliant.

It requires operators to have manufacturer-specific training; and for repairs to be done and signed off on by the manufacturers.

This is a big change and puts a lot of responsibility on private industry to regulate itself; but it makes a lot of sense given that the FAA can’t predict what use cases may come up in 3 or 5 years; so it allows for flexibility.

Staffing

The rule calls for adding two new job roles to the lexicon of drones – Operations supervisor and flight coordinator.

Operations supervisor would be a required position under Part 108, and that person would be responsible for overseeing all drone operations. They’d be the primary point of contact for the FAA, and would have the final say on training/pilot credentialing within their organization.

The second role is flight coordinator, and that person would be responsible for overseeing each drone flight. They likely wouldn’t actually be doing any manual flying (more on that in the next section), but would have the responsibility for ensuring the drone is operating normally.

Autonomy

One thing that was somewhat shocking, albeit very forward thinking, is how much the rule focused on pilots NOT flying the drones.

Instead, the rule has a strong preference for autonomously-operated aircraft, with the flight coordinator being there only as a last resort. In fact, even if the flight coordinator does have to intervene, the rule calls for them not to have the ability to manually fly the aircraft at all – only to make inputs like “change altitude,” “change heading,” or “return to base.”

This is a major departure from Part 107, which specifically excludes autonomous flight; but it’s an absolutely necessary step to do beyond line of sight flights at scale.

Detect and Avoid

The rule proposes that any aircraft operating in Class B or C airspace would have an on-board method to detect and avoid other aircraft. This suggests that these aircraft would be required to have optical or radar-based methods of deconflicting with manned aircraft, which, while great from a safety standpoint, could put a significant burden on manufacturers and operators.

Swarming