Part 108 NPRM and the Two Camps of the Drone Industry: Lessons from Commercial UAV Expo 2025
By DRONELIFE Contributing Editor Paul Rossi
Last week, I attended my fourth straight Commercial UAV Expo in Las Vegas, NV. This year’s event was especially notable, not only for the conversations happening on the show floor, but also for what was continuing to develop outside the convention center. I noticed an increase in autonomous cars cruising the streets. Companies like Zoox, had some vehicles with human drivers in the front seat, while others had no driver at all. I did not see anything wild happen with these autonomous vehicles but you may have read about the Waymo in Phoenix that got stuck driving in circles without a human to intervene.
The timing was significant. Just before the Expo, the FAA released the long-awaited Part 108 BVLOS Notice of Proposed Rule Making, a proposed rule that has quickly divided the drone industry into two distinct camps.
Camp 1: Scaling Through Automation
Camp 1 sees Part 108 as the pathway to scale, enabling human-out-of-the-loop operations for delivery, inspection, and security missions. They argue that automation, supported by robust detect-and-avoid systems, is essential for maintaining the highest levels of safety while reducing operational overhead. In this camp manual flight control is seen as a hindrance to flight safety and the ability to operate at the highest efficiency levels. Comparable to the scaled airline and logistics companies that are leveraging autonomous flight in crewed aircraft from takeoff to landing to increase safety across varying environmental and operational landscapes.
Today, most Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) waivers require multiple humans (RPICs and Visual Observers) to execute each mission. That labor model simply doesn’t scale across dozens or hundreds of sites. Camp 1’s vision is for a cost-per-operation model that makes sense financially, allowing organizations to grow like regional airlines once did, hiring skilled operators and support staff in large numbers. In many ways, they view the future of drones through the same lens as the autonomous vehicle industry.
Camp 2: BVLOS for Targeted, Local Operations
Camp 2 interprets Part 108 differently. They see it as a way to unlock BVLOS operations for smaller-scale missions (like bridge inspections, short-range corridor mapping, and video production) often conducted by independent operators or smaller commercial teams.
These operators rely on systems that work well for limited ranges, often using 2.4 GHz / 5.8 GHz links that are vulnerable to interference. Their aircraft typically lack the full suite of detect-and-avoid capabilities found in purpose-built BVLOS drones. They believe that under Part 108, operations that require manual control will not be allowed, leading them to be wary of losing access to the regulatory pathways they’ve relied on for years.
The Aviation Analogy
Flying a drone BVLOS is similar to piloting an airplane in Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC), you can’t rely on visual cues alone. In manned aviation, we use instruments, procedures, and training to maintain safety.
So, I ask:
- What tools is a drone pilot using when they cannot see the traffic around their UAS?
- How do those tools compare to the situational awareness provided to manned pilots?
These are the types of questions that must be addressed if BVLOS is to be integrated seamlessly into the national airspace.
Bridging the Gap Between Camps
Camp 1 advocates argue that automation-friendly BVLOS rules will create more jobs by enabling safe, scalable operations. Camp 2 participants point to their own track record of safe BVLOS flights under Part 107 waivers and are concerned about losing those privileges.
My challenge to Camp 2 is this:
What operational concepts have already been proven safe under 107 waivers, and how can those be codified into standing 107 regulations – just like Night Operations and Operations Over People once were?
That pathway could allow both camps to move forward without sidelining proven safe practices.
Autonomous Cars, Autonomous Drones, and Job Shifts
As I walked past Zoox cars in Las Vegas, I couldn’t help but think back to the Automatic Driving Systems (ADS) – Vehicle Safety, Transparency, and Evaluation Program NPRM the Department of Transportation released earlier this year. That proposal aims to improve safety data collection, transparency, and evaluation standards for autonomous vehicles, setting a precedent for how regulators can encourage innovation while ensuring public safety.
The parallels to the FAA’s Part 108 NPRM are striking. Both are designed to provide a framework for safely scaling automation – whether on the ground or in the air – by establishing clear performance expectations, reducing uncertainty for manufacturers and operators, and fostering public trust.
Autonomous cars are already reshaping the ride-share industry. Waymo, Zoox, and others are testing and deploying driverless technology, sometimes with a human backup, other times without. As more of these systems pass regulatory milestones, ride-share drivers may find themselves in the same position that many human drone pilots will face: adapting to a role that is increasingly focused on the management or oversight of autonomous systems rather than directly controlling them. The UAS industry is evolving just as quickly, and perhaps even more visibly in the regulatory space.
I even wondered if some of the Zoox drivers I passed were studying for their Part 107 Remote Pilot Certificate – maybe using Part 107 Made Easy from Pilot Institute – in preparation for the day when their job behind the wheel is replaced by autonomy. In both industries, the shift isn’t just about replacing human operators. It’s about transforming job roles, skill requirements, and the very nature of how work gets done. Autonomous terrestrial vehicles will almost certainly replace employees in today’s ground-based transportation roles, but autonomous drones have the potential to create entirely new jobs – roles that don’t even exist yet – as operators scale innovative operations across the United States.
The Final Question
The FAA’s mission is clear: “To provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.”
As Part 108 takes shape, I’m left asking: Where will the FAA focus its resources – on advancing automation for scalable BVLOS operations, or on preserving existing capabilities for smaller operators? Can it do both?
The answer will shape not just how we operate drones, but how quickly we fully integrate them into our daily lives – whether delivering packages, inspecting infrastructure, or securing our communities.
Read more:
- Matt Sloane Read the Entire FAA Part 108 NPRM So You Don’t Have To—Here’s What Actually Matters
- 10 Initial Takeaways from the FAA’s BVLOS Drone NPRM: What Operators Need to Know
- BVLOS “Transforms Our Entire Business Model” says Drone Delivery CEO
Paul Rossi, US Army Veteran, is the President at Nine Ten Drones, a N. C.-based drone services company, training center, and reseller. A graduate of Embry Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU) and the U.S. Army Aviation Logistics School, Rossi is passionate about the aviation industry. He holds both a Private Pilot’s License w/ Instrument Rating for manned aircraft and a Part 107 Remote Pilot’s Certificate. Rossi is currently studying for his MS Space Operations from ERAU, energized to expand his reach beyond Earth’s atmosphere. You can see more videos and product information on the Nine Ten Drones YouTube channel and connect with Paul on LinkedIn.com
Leave a Reply