UnmannedAircraftSystems. SelectedDocuments

Transcription

1 TheUniversityofMississippiSchoolofLaw TheNationalCenterforRemoteSensing,Air,andSpaceLaw Informationalresourcesonthelegalaspectsofhumanactivitiesusingaerospacetechnoliges UnmannedAircraftSystems inu.s.nationalairspace: SelectedDocuments P.J.Blount,Editor Prof.JoanneIreneGabrynowicz,Editor CompiledbyP.J.Blount SpecialTopicsinAerospaceLawSeries,no.4 ASupplementtotheJournalofSpaceLaw

2 This page intentionally left blank. ii

3 Disclaimer The information contained in this compilation represents information as of October 24, It does not constitute legal representation by the National Center for Remote Sensing, Air, and Space Law (Center), its faculty or staff. Before using any information in this publication, it is recommended that an attorney be consulted for specific legal advice. This publication is offered as a service to the Center's readership. The documents contained in this publication do not purport to be official copies. Some pages have sections blocked out. These blocked sections do not appear in the original documents. Blocked out sections contain information wholly unrelated to the space law materials intended to be compiled. The sections were blocked out by the Center's faculty and staff to facilitate focus on the relevant materials. iii

4 National Center for Remote Sensing, Air, and Space Law Founded in 1999, the National Center for Remote Sensing, Air, and Space Law is a reliable source for creating, gathering, and disseminating objective and timely remote sensing, space, and aviation legal research and materials. The Center serves the public good and the aerospace industry by addressing and conducting education and outreach activities related to the legal aspects of aerospace technologies to human activities. Faculty and Staff Prof. Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz, Director Prof. Jacqueline Etil Serrao, Associate Director P.J. Blount, Research Counsel and Instructor of Law Michelle Aten, Assistant Director Melissa Wilson, Senior Staff Assistant Audrey Uffner, Archivist For More Information P.O. Box 1848 University, MS USA Phone: Fax: spacelaw@olemiss.edu iv

5 Unmanned Aircraft Systems in U.S. National Airspace: Selected Documents Compiled by P.J. Blount P.J. Blount, editor Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz, editor Copyright 2012 The National Center for Remote Sensing, Air, and Space Law at University of Mississippi School of Law, University of Mississippi v

6 Copyright 2012 The National Center for Remote Sensing, Air, and Space Law at the University of Mississippi School of Law University of Mississippi All Rights Reserved ISBN Published by The National Center for Remote Sensing, Air, and Space Law At the University of Mississippi School of Law University of Mississippi P.O. Box 1848 University, MS Cover design by Michelle L. Aten. This publication was made possible by a NASA grant. vi

7 National Airspace: Selected Documents Table of Contents Foreword by Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz ix Relevant Federal Regulations and Law Relevant Code of Federal Regulations Sections 1 Public Law : National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, excerpt sections 1074, 1097 (December 12, 2011) 5 Public Law : FAA Modernization Reform and Act of 2012 (February 14, 2012) 8 Proposed Legislation and Other Congressional Documents The Integration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) into the National Airspace System (NAS): Fulfilling Imminent Operational and Training Requirements, Field Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, United States Senate (September 13, 2010) 16 H.R. 5925: Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2012 (June 7, 2012) 55 S. 3287: Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2012 (June 12, 2012) 58 H.R. 5950: No Armed Drones Act of 2012 (June 15, 2012) 61 H.R. 6199: Preserving American Privacy Act of 2012 (July 25, 2012) 64 FAA Policies and Orders Advisory Circular 91-57: Model Aircraft Operating Standards (June 9, 1981) 68 Memorandum: Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Certification Status (November 15, 2006) 69 FAA Unmanned Aircraft Operations in the National Airspace System; Notice of Policy; Opportunity for Feedback (February 13, 2007) 72 Order : Small Unmanned Aircraft System Aviation Rulemaking Committee (April 10, 2008) 78 Interim Operational Approval Guidance 08-01: Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operations in the U. S. National Airspace System (March 13, 2008) 82 vii

8 Memorandum: Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Certification Status, Optionally Piloted Aircraft, and Accidents involving UAS (August 18, 2008) 100 Order A: Airworthiness Certification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems and Optionally Piloted Aircraft (October 27, 2010) 106 Fact Sheet: Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) (July 2011) 163 Order B: Airworthiness Certification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems and Optionally Piloted Aircraft (November 28, 2011) 166 Military Policies Army Regulation 95-23: Unmanned Aircraft Systems Flight Regulations (July 2, 2010) 223 Army Directive : Supplemental Policy for Operations of Unmanned Aircraft Systems in the National Airspace System (January 13, 2012) 277 Air Force Instruction : Oversight of Intelligence Activities, excerpt section 9. Domestic Imagery (April 23, 2012) 302 Other Documents State v. Brossart, Memorandum Decision and Order Denying Motion to Dismiss, No CR (N.E. Cen. D., N.D. 2012) 307 International Association of Chiefs of Police Aviation Committee: Recommended Guidelines for the use of Unmanned Aircraft (August 16, 2012) 319 Congressional Research Service, Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations: Fourth Amendment Implications and Legislative Responses (Sept. 6, 2012) 322 Congressional Research Service, Pilotless Drones: Background and Considerations for Congress Regarding Unmanned Aircraft Operations in the National Airspace System (Sept. 10, 2012) 345 Government Accountability Office, Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Measuring Progress and Addressing Potential Privacy Concerns Would Facilitate Integration into the National Airspace System, GAO (Sept. 2012). 369 viii

9 National Airspace: Selected Documents Foreword By Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz The U.S. Congress has directed the United States Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the aviation industry and Federal agencies that use unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), to develop a comprehensive plan to integrate UAS into the U.S. National Airspace System (NAS). 1 The plan must address a wide variety of subjects including, but not limited to, definition of acceptable standards; requirements for operators and pilots; and a realistic time frame for UAS integration into the NAS. Integration is required no later than September 30, Consequently, there is currently a robust debate about how this plan should be formulated and what it should ultimately contain. Although there are many important aspects to the debate, two of the central issues are safety and privacy. Safety issues include incorporating aspects of the Visual Flight Rules including see and avoid into the UAS plan. The U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Aviation Administration has a long track record regarding promulgating and implementing safety regulations. It is reasonable to expect a successful continuation of that record. However, privacy is new. Privacy promises to raise novel issues of great interest to professionals and the public alike. Commentators on the political right and left and in the technology community are already engaged in vigorous discussion. 3 Any issue addressed from so many diverse quarters portends to be a major one. The National Center for Remote Sensing, Air and Space Law offers this publication as a service to inform the debate. It contains a variety of documents including a number of pending bills intended to address various aspects of UASs. It should be anticipated that going forward, many of the documents in this publication will either change or become obsolete. Nonetheless, they represent the state of the art of the current dialogue and will provide the reader with an entry position to this fast-paced, dynamic subject. 1 FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, H.R. 658, 112th Cong. 332 (2012). 2 Id. 332 (3). 3 Peter W. Singer, Do Drones Undermine Democracy?, NY TIMES (Jan. 21, 2012); John Yoo, Obama, Drones and Thomas Aquinas, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL (June 7, 2012); Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai, Revealed: 64 Drone Bases on American Soil, WIRED (June 13, 2012), at ix

10 This page intentionally left blank. x

11 14. C.F.R. 1.1 General Definitions... Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.... Air traffic means aircraft operating in the air or on an airport surface, exclusive of loading ramps and parking areas.... Air traffic clearance means an authorization by air traffic control, for the purpose of preventing collision between known aircraft, for an aircraft to proceed under specified traffic conditions within controlled airspace.... Civil aircraft means aircraft other than public aircraft.... Commercial operator means a person who, for compensation or hire, engages in the carriage by aircraft in air commerce of persons or property, other than as an air carrier or foreign air carrier or under the authority of Part 375 of this title. Where it is doubtful that an operation is for compensation or hire, the test applied is whether the carriage by air is merely incidental to the person's other business or is, in itself, a major enterprise for profit.... Controlled airspace means an airspace of defined dimensions within which air traffic control service is provided to IFR flights and to VFR flights in accordance with the airspace classification. Note: Controlled airspace is a generic term that covers Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D, and Class E airspace.... Navigable airspace means airspace at and above the minimum flight altitudes prescribed by or under this chapter, including airspace needed for safe takeoff and landing.... Operate, with respect to aircraft, means use, cause to use or authorize to use aircraft, for the purpose (except as provided in of this chapter) of air navigation including the piloting of aircraft, with or without the right of legal control (as owner, lessee, or otherwise).... Operational control, with respect to a flight, means the exercise of authority over initiating, conducting or terminating a flight.... Public aircraft means any of the following aircraft when not being used for a commercial purpose or to carry an individual other than a crewmember or qualified non-crewmenber: (1) An aircraft used only for the United States Government; an aircraft owned by the Government and operated by any person for purposes related to crew training, equipment development, or demonstration; an aircraft owned and operated by the government of a State, the District of Columbia, or a territory or possession of the United States or a political subdivision of one of these governments; or an aircraft exclusively leased for at least 90 continuous days by the government of a State, the District of Columbia, or a territory or possession of the United States or a political subdivision of one of these governments. (i) For the sole purpose of determining public aircraft status, commercial purposes means the transportation of persons or property for compensation or hire, but does not include the operation of an aircraft by the armed forces for reimbursement when that reimbursement is required by any Federal statute, regulation, or directive, in effect on November 1, 1999, or by one government on behalf of NCRSASL - 1

12 another government under a cost reimbursement agreement if the government on whose behalf the operation is conducted certifies to the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration that the operation is necessary to respond to a significant and imminent threat to life or property (including natural resources) and that no service by a private operator is reasonably available to meet the threat. (ii) For the sole purpose of determining public aircraft status, governmental function means an activity undertaken by a government, such as national defense, intelligence missions, firefighting, search and rescue, law enforcement (including transport of prisoners, detainees, and illegal aliens), aeronautical research, or biological or geological resource management. (iii) For the sole purpose of determining public aircraft status, qualified non-crewmember means an individual, other than a member of the crew, aboard an aircraft operated by the armed forces or an intelligence agency of the United States Government, or whose presence is required to perform, or is associated with the performance of, a governmental function. (2) An aircraft owned or operated by the armed forces or chartered to provide transportation to the armed forces if (i) The aircraft is operated in accordance with title 10 of the United States Code; (ii) The aircraft is operated in the performance of a governmental function under title 14, 31, 32, or 50 of the United States Code and the aircraft is not used for commercial purposes; or (iii) The aircraft is chartered to provide transportation to the armed forces and the Secretary of Defense (or the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating) designates the operation of the aircraft as being required in the national interest. (3) An aircraft owned or operated by the National Guard of a State, the District of Columbia, or any territory or possession of the United States, and that meets the criteria of paragraph (2) of this definition, qualifies as a public aircraft only to the extent that it is operated under the direct control of the Department of Defense....United States, in a geographical sense, means (1) the States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the possessions, including the territorial waters, and (2) the airspace of those areas. 14 C.F.R Experimental certificates. Experimental certificates are issued for the following purposes: (a) Research and development. Testing new aircraft design concepts, new aircraft equipment, new aircraft installations, new aircraft operating techniques, or new uses for aircraft. (b) Showing compliance with regulations. Conducting flight tests and other operations to show compliance with the airworthiness regulations including flights to show compliance for issuance of type and supplemental type certificates, flights to substantiate major design changes, and flights to show compliance with the function and reliability requirements of the regulations. (c) Crew training. Training of the applicant's flight crews. NCRSASL - 2

13 (d) Exhibition. Exhibiting the aircraft's flight capabilities, performance, or unusual characteristics at air shows, motion picture, television, and similar productions, and the maintenance of exhibition flight proficiency, including (for persons exhibiting aircraft) flying to and from such air shows and productions. (e) Air racing. Participating in air races, including (for such participants) practicing for such air races and flying to and from racing events. (f) Market surveys. Use of aircraft for purposes of conducting market surveys, sales demonstrations, and customer crew training only as provided in (g) Operating amateur-built aircraft. Operating an aircraft the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who undertook the construction project solely for their own education or recreation. (h) Operating primary kit-built aircraft. Operating a primary category aircraft that meets the criteria of 21.24(a)(1) that was assembled by a person from a kit manufactured by the holder of a production certificate for that kit, without the supervision and quality control of the production certificate holder under (a). (i) Operating light-sport aircraft. Operating a light-sport aircraft that (1) Has not been issued a U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate and does not meet the provisions of of this chapter. An experimental certificate will not be issued under this paragraph for these aircraft after January 31, 2008; (2) Has been assembled and (i) From an aircraft kit for which the applicant can provide the information required by (e); (ii) In accordance with manufacturer's assembly instructions that meet an applicable consensus standard; or (3) Has been previously issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category under C.F.R Experimental certificates: general. An applicant for an experimental certificate must submit the following information: (a) A statement, in a form and manner prescribed by the FAA setting forth the purpose for which the aircraft is to be used. (b) Enough data (such as photographs) to identify the aircraft. (c) Upon inspection of the aircraft, any pertinent information found necessary by the FAA to safeguard the general public. (d) In the case of an aircraft to be used for experimental purposes NCRSASL - 3

14 (1) The purpose of the experiment; (2) The estimated time or number of flights required for the experiment; (3) The areas over which the experiment will be conducted; and (4) Except for aircraft converted from a previously certificated type without appreciable change in the external configuration, three-view drawings or three-view dimensioned photographs of the aircraft. (e) In the case of a light-sport aircraft assembled from a kit to be certificated in accordance with (i)(2), an applicant must provide the following: (1) Evidence that an aircraft of the same make and model was manufactured and assembled by the aircraft kit manufacturer and issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category. (2) The aircraft's operating instructions. (3) The aircraft's maintenance and inspection procedures. (4) The manufacturer's statement of compliance for the aircraft kit used in the aircraft assembly that meets (c), except that instead of meeting (c)(7), the statement must identify assembly instructions for the aircraft that meet an applicable consensus standard. (5) The aircraft's flight training supplement. (6) In addition to paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(5) of this section, for an aircraft kit manufactured outside of the United States, evidence that the aircraft kit was manufactured in a country with which the United States has a Bilateral Airworthiness Agreement concerning airplanes or a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement with associated Implementation Procedures for Airworthiness concerning airplanes, or an equivalent airworthiness agreement. NCRSASL - 4

15 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 Public Law th Congress An Act To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. <<NOTE: Dec. 31, [H.R. 1540]>> Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.>> SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012''.... SEC REPORT ON INTEGRATION OF UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS INTO THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM. (a) Report Required.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall, in consultation with the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration and on behalf of the UAS Executive Committee, submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report setting forth the following: (1) A description and assessment of the rate of progress in integrating unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system. (2) An assessment of the potential for one or more pilot program or programs on such integration at certain test ranges to increase that rate of progress. (b) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' means-- (1) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and (2) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.... SEC UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS AND NATIONAL AIRSPACE. NCRSASL - 5

16 (a) Establishment.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall establish a program to integrate unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system at six test ranges. (b) Program Requirements.--In establishing the program under subsection (a), the Administrator shall-- (1) safely designate nonexclusionary airspace for integrated manned and unmanned flight operations in the national airspace system; (2) develop certification standards and air traffic requirements for unmanned flight operations at test ranges; (3) coordinate with and leverage the resources of the Department of Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; (4) address both civil and public unmanned aircraft systems; (5) ensure that the program is coordinated with the Next Generation Air Transportation System; and (6) provide for verification of the safety of unmanned aircraft systems and related navigation procedures before integration into the national airspace system. (c) Locations.--In determining the location of a test range for the program under subsection (a), the Administrator shall-- (1) take into consideration geographic and climatic diversity; (2) take into consideration the location of ground infrastructure and research needs; and (3) consult with the Department of Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (d) Test Range Operation.--A project at a test range shall be operational not later than 180 days after the date on which the project is established. (e) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of completing each of the pilot projects, the Administrator shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report setting forth the Administrator's findings and conclusions concerning the projects that includes a description and assessment of the progress being made in establishing special use airspace to fill the immediate need of the Department of Defense to develop detection techniques for small unmanned aircraft systems and to validate sensor integration and operation of unmanned aircraft systems. (f) Duration.--The program under subsection (a) shall terminate on the date that is five years after the date of the enactment of this Act. (g) Definition.--In this section: (1) The term ``appropriate congressional committees'' means-- (A) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives; and (B) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of NCRSASL - 6

17 the Senate. (2) The term ``test range'' means a defined geographic area where research and development are conducted. NCRSASL - 7

18 PUBLIC LAW FEB. 14, STAT. 11 Public Law th Congress An Act To amend title 49, United States Code, to authorize appropriations for the Federal Aviation Administration for fiscal years 2011 through 2014, to streamline programs, create efficiencies, reduce waste, and improve aviation safety and capacity, to provide stable funding for the national aviation system, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. (a) SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS PO Frm Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6582 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL PUBL095 NCRSASL - 8

19 Subtitle B Unmanned Aircraft Systems dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS 49 USC note. Applicability. SEC DEFINITIONS. In this subtitle, the following definitions apply: (1) ARCTIC. The term Arctic means the United States zone of the Chukchi Sea, Beaufort Sea, and Bering Sea north of the Aleutian chain. (2) CERTIFICATE OF WAIVER; CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZA- TION. The terms certificate of waiver and certificate of authorization mean a Federal Aviation Administration grant of approval for a specific flight operation. (3) PERMANENT AREAS. The term permanent areas means areas on land or water that provide for launch, recovery, and operation of small unmanned aircraft. (4) PUBLIC UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM. The term public unmanned aircraft system means an unmanned aircraft system that meets the qualifications and conditions required for operation of a public aircraft (as defined in section of title 49, United States Code). (5) SENSE AND AVOID CAPABILITY. The term sense and avoid capability means the capability of an unmanned aircraft to remain a safe distance from and to avoid collisions with other airborne aircraft. (6) SMALL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT. The term small unmanned aircraft means an unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds. (7) TEST RANGE. The term test range means a defined geographic area where research and development are conducted. (8) UNMANNED AIRCRAFT. The term unmanned aircraft means an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft. (9) UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM. The term unmanned aircraft system means an unmanned aircraft and associated elements (including communication links and the components that control the unmanned aircraft) that are required for the pilot in command to operate safely and efficiently in the national airspace system. VerDate Mar 15 Unmanned :45 Aircraft Mar 06, 2012 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL GPO1 PsN: PUBL095 NCRSASL - 9

20 PUBLIC LAW FEB. 14, STAT. 73 dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS SEC INTEGRATION OF CIVIL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS INTO NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM. (a) REQUIRED PLANNING FOR INTEGRATION. (1) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with representatives of the aviation industry, Federal agencies that employ unmanned aircraft systems technology in the national airspace system, and the unmanned aircraft systems industry, shall develop a comprehensive plan to safely accelerate the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system. (2) CONTENTS OF PLAN. The plan required under paragraph (1) shall contain, at a minimum, recommendations or projections on (A) the rulemaking to be conducted under subsection (b), with specific recommendations on how the rulemaking will (i) define the acceptable standards for operation and certification of civil unmanned aircraft systems; (ii) ensure that any civil unmanned aircraft system includes a sense and avoid capability; and (iii) establish standards and requirements for the operator and pilot of a civil unmanned aircraft system, including standards and requirements for registration and licensing; (B) the best methods to enhance the technologies and subsystems necessary to achieve the safe and routine operation of civil unmanned aircraft systems in the national airspace system; (C) a phased-in approach to the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system; (D) a timeline for the phased-in approach described under subparagraph (C); (E) creation of a safe (F) airspace designation for cooperative manned and unmanned flight operations in the national airspace system; (G) establishment of a process to develop certification, flight standards, and air traffic requirements for civil unmanned aircraft systems at test ranges where such systems are subject to testing; (H) the best methods to ensure the safe operation of civil unmanned aircraft systems and public unmanned aircraft systems simultaneously in the national airspace system; and (I) incorporation of the plan into the annual NextGen Implementation Plan document (or any successor document) of the Federal Aviation Administration. (3) DEADLINE. The plan required under paragraph (1) shall provide for the safe integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system as soon as practicable, but not later than September 30, (4) REPORT TO CONGRESS. Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a copy of the plan required under paragraph (1). 49 USC note. Deadline. VerDate Mar 15 Unmanned :45 Aircraft Mar 06, 2012 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL GPO1 PsN: PUBL095 NCRSASL - 10

21 dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS 126 STAT. 74 PUBLIC LAW FEB. 14, 2012 Deadlines. Publication. Web posting. Deadline. Federal Register, publication. Deadline. Termination date. Standards. Consultation. (5) ROADMAP. Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall approve and make available in print and on the Administration s Internet Web site a 5-year roadmap for the introduction of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system, as coordinated by the Unmanned Aircraft Program Office of the Administration. The Secretary shall update the roadmap annually. (b) RULEMAKING. Not later than 18 months after the date on which the plan required under subsection (a)(1) is submitted to Congress under subsection (a)(4), the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register (1) a final rule on small unmanned aircraft systems that will allow for civil operation of such systems in the national airspace system, to the extent the systems do not meet the requirements for expedited operational authorization under section 333 of this Act; (2) a notice of proposed rulemaking to implement the recommendations of the plan required under subsection (a)(1), with the final rule to be published not later than 16 months after the date of publication of the notice; and (3) an update to the Administration s most recent policy statement on unmanned aircraft systems, contained in Docket No. FAA (c) PILOT PROJECTS. (1) ESTABLISHMENT. Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall establish a program to integrate unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system at 6 test ranges. The program shall terminate 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act. (2) PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS. In establishing the program under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall (A) safely designate airspace for integrated manned and unmanned flight operations in the national airspace system; (B) develop certification standards and air traffic requirements for unmanned flight operations at test ranges; (C) coordinate with and leverage the resources of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Department of Defense; (D) address both civil and public unmanned aircraft systems; (E) ensure that the program is coordinated with the Next Generation Air Transportation System; and (F) provide for verification of the safety of unmanned aircraft systems and related navigation procedures before integration into the national airspace system. (3) TEST RANGE LOCATIONS. In determining the location of the 6 test ranges of the program under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall (A) take into consideration geographic and climatic diversity; (B) take into consideration the location of ground infrastructure and research needs; and (C) consult with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Department of Defense. VerDate Mar 15 Unmanned :45 Aircraft Mar 06, 2012 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL GPO1 PsN: PUBL095 NCRSASL - 11

22 PUBLIC LAW FEB. 14, STAT. 75 dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS (4) TEST RANGE OPERATION. A project at a test range shall be operational not later than 180 days after the date on which the project is established. (5) REPORT TO CONGRESS. (A) IN GENERAL. Not later than 90 days after the date of the termination of the program under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives a report setting forth the Administrator s findings and conclusions concerning the projects. (B) ADDITIONAL CONTENTS. The report under subparagraph (A) shall include a description and assessment of the progress being made in establishing special use airspace to fill the immediate need of the Department of Defense (i) to develop detection techniques for small unmanned aircraft systems; and (ii) to validate the sense and avoid capability and operation of unmanned aircraft systems. (d) EXPANDING USE OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS IN ARCTIC. (1) IN GENERAL. Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop a plan and initiate a process to work with relevant Federal agencies and national and international communities to designate permanent areas in the Arctic where small unmanned aircraft may operate 24 hours per day for research and commercial purposes. The plan for operations in these permanent areas shall include the development of processes to facilitate the safe operation of unmanned aircraft beyond line of sight. Such areas shall enable over-water flights from the surface to at least 2,000 feet in altitude, with ingress and egress routes from selected coastal launch sites. (2) AGREEMENTS. To implement the plan under paragraph (1), the Secretary may enter into an agreement with relevant national and international communities. (3) AIRCRAFT APPROVAL. Not later than 1 year after the entry into force of an agreement necessary to effectuate the purposes of this subsection, the Secretary shall work with relevant national and international communities to establish and implement a process, or may apply an applicable process already established, for approving the use of unmanned aircraft in the designated permanent areas in the Arctic without regard to whether an unmanned aircraft is used as a public aircraft, a civil aircraft, or a model aircraft. SEC SPECIAL RULES FOR CERTAIN UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYS- TEMS. (a) IN GENERAL. Notwithstanding any other requirement of this subtitle, and not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall determine if certain unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in the national airspace system before completion of the plan and rulemaking required by section 332 of this Act or the guidance required by section 334 of this Act. Deadline. Deadline. Plans. Deadline. 49 USC note. Deadline. Determination. VerDate Mar 15 Unmanned :45 Aircraft Mar 06, 2012 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL GPO1 PsN: PUBL095 NCRSASL - 12

23 126 STAT. 76 PUBLIC LAW FEB. 14, 2012 Determination. (b) ASSESSMENT OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS. In making the determination under subsection (a), the Secretary shall determine, at a minimum (1) which types of unmanned aircraft systems, if any, as a result of their size, weight, speed, operational capability, proximity to airports and populated areas, and operation within visual line of sight do not create a hazard to users of the national airspace system or the public or pose a threat to national security; and (2) whether a certificate of waiver, certificate of authorization, or airworthiness certification under section of title 49, United States Code, is required for the operation of unmanned aircraft systems identified under paragraph (1). (c) REQUIREMENTS FOR SAFE OPERATION. If the Secretary determines under this section that certain unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in the national airspace system, the Secretary shall establish requirements for the safe operation of such aircraft systems in the national airspace system. dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS 49 USC note. Deadline. Deadline. Deadline. SEC PUBLIC UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS. (a) GUIDANCE. Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall issue guidance regarding the operation of public unmanned aircraft systems to (1) expedite the issuance of a certificate of authorization process; (2) provide for a collaborative process with public agencies to allow for an incremental expansion of access to the national airspace system as technology matures and the necessary safety analysis and data become available, and until standards are completed and technology issues are resolved; (3) facilitate the capability of public agencies to develop and use test ranges, subject to operating restrictions required by the Federal Aviation Administration, to test and operate unmanned aircraft systems; and (4) provide guidance on a public entity s responsibility when operating an unmanned aircraft without a civil airworthiness certificate issued by the Administration. (b) STANDARDS FOR OPERATION AND CERTIFICATION. Not later than December 31, 2015, the Administrator shall develop and implement operational and certification requirements for the operation of public unmanned aircraft systems in the national airspace system. (c) AGREEMENTS WITH GOVERNMENT AGENCIES. (1) IN GENERAL. Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall enter into agreements with appropriate government agencies to simplify the process for issuing certificates of waiver or authorization with respect to applications seeking authorization to operate public unmanned aircraft systems in the national airspace system. (2) CONTENTS. The agreements shall (A) with respect to an application described in paragraph (1) (i) provide for an expedited review of the application; VerDate Mar 15 Unmanned :45 Aircraft Mar 06, 2012 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL GPO1 PsN: PUBL095 NCRSASL - 13

24 PUBLIC LAW FEB. 14, STAT. 77 (ii) require a decision by the Administrator on approval or disapproval within 60 business days of the date of submission of the application; and (iii) allow for an expedited appeal if the application is disapproved; (B) allow for a one-time approval of similar operations carried out during a fixed period of time; and (C) allow a government public safety agency to operate unmanned aircraft weighing 4.4 pounds or less, if operated (i) within the line of sight of the operator; (ii) less than 400 feet above the ground; (iii) during daylight conditions; (iv) within Class G airspace; and (v) outside of 5 statute miles from any airport, heliport, seaplane base, spaceport, or other location with aviation activities. SEC SAFETY STUDIES. The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall carry out all safety studies necessary to support the integration of unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system. Deadline. 49 USC note. dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS SEC SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT. (a) IN GENERAL. Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if (1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use; (2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a communitybased set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization; (3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization; (4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and (5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)). (b) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system. (c) MODEL AIRCRAFT DEFINED. In this section, the term model aircraft means an unmanned aircraft that is (1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere; 49 USC note. VerDate Mar 15 Unmanned :45 Aircraft Mar 06, 2012 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL GPO1 PsN: PUBL095 NCRSASL - 14

25 126 STAT. 78 PUBLIC LAW FEB. 14, 2012 (2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and (3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes. dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS PUBLAW\PUBL GPO1 PsN: PUBL095 NCRSASL - 15

26 S. HRG THE INTEGRATION OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (UASs) INTO THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM (NAS): FULFILLING IMMINENT OPERATIONAL AND TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FIELD HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION OPERATIONS, SAFETY, AND SECURITY OF THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE PDF WASHINGTON : 2011 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) ; DC area (202) Fax: (202) Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC VerDate Nov 24 Unmanned :41 Aircraft Sep 23, 2011 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 S:\GPO\DOCS\68402.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE NCRSASL - 16

27 SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota BARBARA BOXER, California BILL NELSON, Florida MARIA CANTWELL, Washington FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey MARK PRYOR, Arkansas CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota TOM UDALL, New Mexico MARK WARNER, Virginia MARK BEGICH, Alaska KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas, Ranking OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada JIM DEMINT, South Carolina JOHN THUNE, South Dakota ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi GEORGE S. LEMIEUX, Florida JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia DAVID VITTER, Louisiana SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska ELLEN L. DONESKI, Staff Director JAMES REID, Deputy Staff Director BRUCE H. ANDREWS, General Counsel ANN BEGEMAN, Republican Staff Director BRIAN M. HENDRICKS, Republican General Counsel NICK ROSSI, Republican Chief Counsel SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION OPERATIONS, SAFETY, AND SECURITY BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota, Chairman DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts BARBARA BOXER, California BILL NELSON, Florida MARIA CANTWELL, Washington FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey MARK PRYOR, Arkansas CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota MARK WARNER, Virginia MARK BEGICH, Alaska JIM DEMINT, South Carolina, Ranking Member OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada JOHN THUNE, South Dakota ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi GEORGE S. LEMIEUX, Florida JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia DAVID VITTER, Louisiana SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska (II) VerDate Nov 24 Unmanned :41 Aircraft Sep 23, 2011 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\GPO\DOCS\68402.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE NCRSASL - 17

28 C O N T E N T S Page Hearing held on September 13, Statement of Senator Dorgan... 1 WITNESSES Representative Earl Pomeroy, Congressman from North Dakota... 2 Hank Krakowski, CFO, Air Traffic Organization; Accompanied by John Allen, Director, Flight Standards Service, Office of Aviation Safety, Federal Aviation Administration... 4 Prepared statement... 5 David Ahern, Director, Portfolio Systems Acquisition, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics)... 7 Prepared statement... 8 Major General Marke Gibson, Director of Operations, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Plans and Requirements, Headquarters U.S. Air Force Prepared statement Brigadier General L. Scott Rice, Co-Chairman, USAF/ANG National Airspace and Range Executive Council, National Guard Bureau Prepared statement APPENDIX Comments from Governor John Hoeven, Office of the Governor, State of North Dakota, dated September 13, 2010, to the Senate Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety and Security hearing on The Integration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) into the National Airspace System (NAS): Fulfilling Imminent Operational and Training Requirements Response to written questions submitted by Hon. John Ensign to Hank Krakowski (III) VerDate Nov 24 Unmanned :41 Aircraft Sep 23, 2011 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\GPO\DOCS\68402.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE NCRSASL - 18

29 VerDate Nov 24 Unmanned :41 Aircraft Sep 23, 2011 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\GPO\DOCS\68402.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE NCRSASL - 19

30 THE INTEGRATION OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (UASs) INTO THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM (NAS): FULFILLING IMMINENT OPERATIONAL AND TRAINING REQUIREMENTS MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 U.S. SENATE, 5SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION OPERATIONS, SAFETY, AND SECURITY, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Grand Forks, ND. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 8 a.m. in the Red River Valley Room of the Memorial Union, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, North Dakota, Hon. Byron L. Dorgan, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA Senator DORGAN. We will call the Committee hearing to order. Good morning to all of you. This is a formal hearing of the Commerce Committee of the U.S. Senate. I m Senator Byron Dorgan, I chair the Aviation Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee. I m joined by my colleague from the House side, Earl Pomeroy. Congressman Pomeroy is in town today and I invited him to join me at this hearing. The hearing is about the subject of unmanned aerial vehicles, and most particularly, the issue of training and operations for UAVs in this region. Grand Forks and this region of North Dakota is slated to become a major UAV center. We will have the Predators and the Global Hawks. We ll have fleets of Global Hawks and Predators stationed here at the Grand Forks Air Force Base. We have Homeland Security, which flies UAVs here. The University of North Dakota Center for Aerospace Science is designated by law and in the DOD descriptions as the center for UAV research. I did that because we fly unmanned aerial vehicles in all kinds of weather, and I had visited Nellis and Creach a number of times and discovered they do quite well when it s warm, flying over desert sand, but they ll be flying them in other areas of the country as well, and the world, and having a center for research of UAVs here, connected to the Air Force and the University of North Dakota, one of the probably the preeminent aviation school in the world, just made a lot of sense. (1) VerDate Nov 24 Unmanned :41 Aircraft Sep 23, 2011 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\DOCS\68402.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE NCRSASL - 20

31 2 So, from that understanding, the question is, what kind of training capability exists in this region for the fleets of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles that will be here in the future? This really is an excellent location for perfecting and developing the rules and procedures necessary to allow unmanned aircraft to operate routinely in the national air space beside manned aircraft. We understand that there are commercial airlines and there s general aviation, and I have previously flown as well. We re not interested in doing anything that would in any way diminish safety in the skies for others who fly in those skies. At the same time, we also understand that UAVs are going to be a significant part of our future and the opportunity to work collectively to find ways to operate them safely in the airspace of our country is very, very important. Here at the University of North Dakota, at the Center for Research for UAVs, there s a lot of work going on, on sensitive technologies and radar and so on, on just this very subject. About a year ago, February 16, 2009, we met in this room, not in a hearing, but in a roundtable discussion, and we had a very substantial discussion about what needed to be done and the timelines to do it, in which to create routine training and operation capability for UAVs here in this region. We had the Air Force and the FAA talk about creating a working group, and from that meeting, a working group was created and has been working between then and now. One of the reasons I wanted to have this hearing is to try to understand where are we with this working group, have we met time deadlines or time sensitive needs in order to get to where we want to be? And if not, how do we begin to meet those requirements? The FAA has one set of responsibilities and the Air Force another, and yet merging both in an understanding that what we need and what we can do to provide at the same time that we train and provide operational capability for UAVs, we can and will assure that there is safety in the national airspace, that it is not diminished at all as a result of this integration. So that s the purpose of this hearing, to try to understand what has happened since February of last year, what s going to happen going forward, and what can we expect for the capability of the Air Force and the FAA to reach agreement on the capability and training that we know is going to be necessary here when we get fleets of Predators and Global Hawks. Let me call for a brief moment on my colleague, Congressman Pomeroy, for an opening statement. We have witnesses that I will then describe and we ll proceed. Congressman Pomeroy, thank you for being here. STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EARL POMEROY, CONGRESSMAN FROM NORTH DAKOTA Representative POMEROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I ll be very brief. Thank you for bringing your Subcommittee here. Thank you for your leadership, Senator, on basically the focus this area has shown on the UAV technology. I m still wrestling the various acronyms, whether we call them UAVs for purposes of this hearing, whether we call them remote-piloted aircraft, whatever we call them, we are, I think, focused like no other place in the country, VerDate Nov 24 Unmanned :41 Aircraft Sep 23, 2011 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\DOCS\68402.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE NCRSASL - 21

32 3 bringing together a variety of assets that we have here, the Air Force Base, the University and an awful lot of open sky, to have a sustained focused area that this 21st Century flight technology, which will be broadly incorporated into how this Nation functions by the end of the century. We are on the cutting edge and we intend to flesh it out. You know, 19 months have passed since the productive launch we had of these discussions in this room. I don t see an awful lot of accomplishment for it. It looks to me like we re kind of at a standoff where the Air Force is not really allowed to operate these things in an integrated Air Force capacity. And by the way, a request for a restricted airspace isn t going anywhere. And so, to me it s a Catch-22, it has got things pretty well locked in place. So I Senator, I m very pleased that you convened this hearing today, and we look forward to seeing what maybe there s more underneath the surface than I m aware of, but I think this thing needs a good solid shove to get things back on track. Thank you, Senator. Senator DORGAN. Thank you very much. It is the case that not enough progress has been made, and the question is, how will more progress be made in the future and what can we expect, and that s the purpose of calling this meeting. I would not have had a hearing had I felt that we were on track, that there is a required urgency to it, and that we would meet expectations. But because that has not been the case, I wanted to have this hearing to put on the formal record these matters. And I recognize this is not the easiest thing in the world to do. I recognize there are very substantial issues here, but we need to solve this, and it s going to require, I think, some real focus to do so. We are joined by Mr. Hank Krakowski, the Chief Operating Officer of the Air Traffic Organization of the FAA. He is accompanied by Mr. John Allen, Flight Standards Service at the FAA. David Ahern is the Director of Portfolio Systems Acquisition at the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Major General Marke Gibson, Director of Operation at the Air Force. And Brigadier General Leon Scott Rice, Co-Chairman of the Air Force and Air National Guard National Airspace and Range Executive Council. Let me say that again, National Airspace and Range Executive Council of the National Guard Bureau. We appreciate all of you coming and appreciate the fact that I started this hearing early, and that s because it turns out the U.S. Senate, which is not the best planning unit in America, decided to have votes this afternoon. And so, I ll have to be on an airplane to go back and cast votes, and your willingness to get up at 8 in the morning is appreciated. Mr. Krakowski, you were with us a year and a half ago in this room. Let me ask all of you, if I might, to say I would say that your entire record your entire statement will be part of the permanent record, and I will ask you to summarize your testimony. Why don t we begin with you, Mr. Krakowski, on behalf of the FAA. If you can tell us where we ve been, where we re going, and what we can expect from the FAA. VerDate Nov 24 Unmanned :41 Aircraft Sep 23, 2011 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\DOCS\68402.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE NCRSASL - 22

33 4 STATEMENT OF HANK KRAKOWSKI, CFO, AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION; ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN ALLEN, DIRECTOR, FLIGHT STANDARDS SERVICE, OFFICE OF AVIATION SAFETY, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Mr. KRAKOWSKI. Senator Dorgan, Congressman Pomeroy, thank you for asking the FAA to testify here today. I will be speaking on the air traffic issues involving these issues. John Allen is here to talk about flight standards, safety, and air worthiness issues. Senator DORGAN. Would you pull that microphone closer to you? Mr. KRAKOWSKI. I d be happy to do that. Senator DORGAN. Thank you. Mr. KRAKOWSKI. The airspace is somewhat of a national treasure, as being part of the FAA, our job is to be stewards of that. So, as we make changes to the airspace, we want to make sure that we do it methodically with all interests, including DOD, DHS, commercial aviation, and general aviation. As you said, they have some equities around it. So, that is a key issue for us. We ve made a lot of progress. Right now, today as we sit here, we have 251 certificates of authorization for unmanned aircraft, 140 of them are DOD related. We have not rejected or denied any DOD COAs in 2010, and we keep moving forward. We ve been doing a lot of interesting things in We supported the Gulf oil spill, the Red River flooding a year ago, and the Haitian earthquake relief operations. We ve got some very innovative things going on with the Army in El Mirage, California. We hope to have our first test bed for ground-based sense and avoid in military operations. So, we re moving as quickly as we feel we can, to make things happen. It should be noted, as you said Senator, that we are currently flying operational missions with unmanned aircraft out of Grand Folks with the Customs and Border Patrol, and those are typically daily missions, weather permitting. We have the tools and the techniques available to allow additional unmanned aircraft operations today, if the machines were available and ready to fly. We think we can use the same techniques that we did with Customs and Border Patrol to make that happen. The issue that we do have to work that s going to take some time is the restricted area, which has been requested, south of Devil s Lake area. And that s going to take a regulatory change, because it is public airspace that we have to transform into restricted airspace. We don t do a lot of that in this country. The restricted areas that exist have been there typically for a long time and they ve been quite useful. To create new restricted airspace for hazardous operations, which is the request, does take a process of regulatory change, which includes public comment. We ve been told that we can expect the concept of operations from the Air National Guard, as well as the safety study, which are the two basic requirements to begin working toward that regulatory change, at the end of the month. From that point forward, in order to create the actual restricted airspace would take one to two years to go through the whole public comment period and everything that we need to do, and that s fairly typical. But, by using COAs and temporary flight restrictions, we do think that we will be able to start operations immediately once the machines become VerDate Nov 24 Unmanned :41 Aircraft Sep 23, 2011 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\DOCS\68402.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE NCRSASL - 23

34 5 available and the staff is in place to start flying, even before that process is complete. So, if it takes 2 years to get the restricted area done, there s no reason that we couldn t start flight operations before that process is over. We have to do this deliberatively. These are unusual vehicles to enter into the national airspace system. They were designed for the war theater. And as you know, this is an environment with a multitude of different types of aircraft that we have to deal with. So, we want to be careful, we want to be measured, we want to make sure that we have all the necessary stakeholders onboard with the plan going forward. That includes airline pilots, AOPA, and all the different constituents and we re prepared to do that. But, one of the real positive things, as we now have in ExCom or an Executive Committee, which David and I serve on, to help be a forcing function to move these issues faster and to move them more efficiently through the system. In our opinion, over the last 2 years, we ve learned a lot. We ve learned how to work with each other better, and I think as time goes on, we ll be able to have a more accelerated, better working relationship to move these things faster and more efficiently than we have in the past. So, it s a learning process, it s a new type of vehicle which has certain limitations that we have to account for. The FAA is required to do this in a measured fashion. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Krakowski follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF HANK KRAKOWSKI, CFO, AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION; ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN ALLEN, DIRECTOR, FLIGHT STANDARDS SERVICE, OFFICE OF AVIATION SAFETY, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Chairman Dorgan, Senator Conrad, Congressman Pomeroy: Thank you for inviting the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to this hearing. Accompanying me today is John Allen, Director of the Flight Standards Service in the Office of Aviation Safety at the FAA. Together, we have distinct yet related duties in carrying out the FAA s mission to ensure the safety and efficiency of the National Airspace System (NAS). Mr. Allen s organization is charged with setting and enforcing the safety standards for aircraft operators and airmen. My role as the head of the Air Traffic Organization is to oversee the Nation s air traffic control system, to move flights safely and efficiently, while also overseeing the capital programs and the modernization of the system. As the most complex airspace in the world, the NAS encompasses an average of over 100,000 aviation operations per day, including commercial air traffic, cargo operations, business jets, etc. Additionally, there are over 238,000 general aviation aircraft that represent a wide range of sophistication and capabilities that may enter the system at any time. There are over 500 air traffic control facilities, more than 12,000 air navigation facilities, and over 19,000 airports, not to mention the thousands of other communications, surveillance, weather reporting, and other aviation support facilities. With this volume of traffic and high degree of complexity, the FAA maintains an extremely safe airspace through diligent oversight and the strong commitment to our safety mission. With regard to unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), the FAA sets the parameters for where a UAS may be operated and how those operations may be conducted safely in the NAS. Our main focus when evaluating UAS operations in the NAS is to avoid any situations in which a UAS would endanger other users of the NAS or compromise the safety of persons or property on the ground. The FAA acknowledges the great potential of UASs in national defense and homeland security, and as such, we strive to accommodate the needs of the Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for UAS operations, always with safety as our top priority. When new aviation technology becomes available, we must determine if the technology itself is safe and that it can be operated safely. Whether the technology is VerDate Nov 24 Unmanned :41 Aircraft Sep 23, 2011 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\68402.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE NCRSASL - 24

35 6 to be used by pilots, operators or air traffic controllers, we determine the risks associated with putting that technology into the NAS. Once the known risks are mitigated, we move forward with integration in stages, assessing safety at each incremental step along the way. Unforeseen developments, changing needs, technological improvements, and human factors all play a role in allowing operations within the civil airspace system. The FAA is using this same methodology to manage the integration of the new UAS technology into the NAS. While UASs offer a promising new technology, the limited safety and operational data available to date does not yet support expedited or full integration into the NAS. Because current available data is insufficient to allow unfettered integration of UASs into the NAS where the public travels every day the FAA must continue to move forward deliberately and cautiously, in accordance with our safety mandate. Because the airspace is a finite resource, and in order for us to carry out our safety mission, the FAA has developed a few avenues through which UAS operators may gain access to the NAS. First, the FAA has a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) process. This is the avenue by which public users (government agencies, including Federal, state, and local law enforcement, as well as state universities) that wish to fly a UAS can gain access to the NAS, provided that the risks of flying the unmanned aircraft in the civil airspace can be appropriately mitigated. Risk mitigations required to grant a COA frequently include special provisions unique to the requested type of operation. For example, the applicant may be restricted to a defined airspace and/or operating during certain times of the day. The UAS may be required to have a transponder if it is to be flown in a certain type of airspace. A ground observer or accompanying chase aircraft may be required to act as the eyes of the UAS. Other safety enhancements may be required, depending on the nature of the proposed operation. The FAA may also set aside airspace for an operator s exclusive use to segregate the dangerous activity or protect something on the ground, when needed. Some of these exclusive use areas are known as Restricted, Warning or Prohibited Areas. The DOD conducts most of its training in such airspace. In order to set aside Restricted or Prohibited Area airspace, the FAA would need to undertake rulemaking to define the parameters of that airspace. This is typically a time-consuming process that would also include environmental reviews that could impact the proposed airspace. Civil UAS operators must apply for a Special Airworthiness Certificate Experimental Category to gain access to the NAS. This avenue allows the civil users to operate UAS for research and development, demonstrations, and crew training. The Special Airworthiness Certificate Experimental Category does not permit carriage of persons or property for compensation or hire. Thus, commercial UAS operations in the U.S. are not permitted at this time. We are working with our partners in government and the private sector to advance the development of UAS and the ultimate integration into the NAS. First, in accordance with Section 1036 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2009, Public Law , the DOD and FAA have formed an Executive Committee (ExCom) to focus on conflict resolution and identification of the range of policy, technical, and procedural concerns arising from the integration of UASs into the NAS. Other ExCom members include DHS and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to capture more broadly other Federal agency efforts and equities in the ExCom. The mission of this multi-agency UAS ExCom is to increase, and ultimately enable routine, access of Federal public UAS operations in the NAS to support the operational, training, developmental, and research requirements of the member agencies. All of these partner agencies are working to ensure that each department and agency is putting the proper focus and resources to continue to lead the world in the integration of UAS. The ExCom s work has also facilitated the work of the Red River Task Force (RRTF), the interagency working group that was established to work on issues regarding the basing of UAS at Grand Forks Air Force Base (RDR). With the ExCom s work and the RRTF s work running in parallel, the FAA is able to support more easily and fully the DOD s needs at RDR. One of the RRTF s first tasks was to establish two separate tracks for DOD s goals at RDR: one would be an aeronautical proposal that would involve establishment of a new restricted area(s), while the other would be a broader menu of operational options that could be used either as a stand-alone solution or as a layered approach for the operation of UASs at RDR. We have done this in numerous places and continue to streamline the approval process. Currently, the FAA is working with the DOD to determine and evaluate the scope and details of its operational needs at RDR. In addition, the RRTF has examined VerDate Nov 24 Unmanned :41 Aircraft Sep 23, 2011 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\68402.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE NCRSASL - 25

36 7 18 option sets that can provide short, mid- and long-term solutions to UAS NAS access at RDR. The FAA continues to be committed to working with the DOD on matters relating to UAS operations at RDR in a manner consistent with our safety mission. Unmanned aircraft systems are a promising new technology, but one that was originally and primarily designed for military purposes. Although the technology incorporated into UASs has advanced, their safety record warrants caution. As we attempt to integrate these aircraft into the NAS, we will continue to look at any risks that UASs pose to the traveling public as well as the risk to persons or property on the ground. As the agency charged with overseeing the safety of our skies, the FAA seeks to balance our partner agencies security, defense, and other public needs with the safety of the NAS. We look forward to continuing our work with our partners and the Congress to do just that. Chairman Dorgan, Senator Conrad, Congressman Pomeroy, this concludes our prepared remarks. We would be pleased to answer any questions you might have. Senator DORGAN. All right, Mr. Krakowski, thank you very much. Next, we ll hear from David Ahern, the Director of Portfolio Systems Acquisition at the Secretary of Defense Office. Mr. Ahern? STATEMENT OF DAVID AHERN, DIRECTOR, PORTFOLIO SYSTEMS ACQUISITION, OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, (ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY AND LOGISTICS) Mr. AHERN. Good morning, Chairman and Congressman Pomeroy, thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today. I really do appreciate it. I think as Mr. Krakowski said, it s going to be a learning opportunity for us, as we press forward in addressing the requests for airspace access. As was mentioned earlier, I have submitted the written testimony. As a summary to where I stand or where my role is, as one of the members of the ExCom with Mr. Krakowski, we have stood up the ExCom, and we have the access plan completed by the working group in review now. We expect to deliver in accordance with the legislation, next month, in October. It has been done collaboratively between the FAA and the other two members of the ExCom: DHS, who has signed off on it, and NASA. We re in the review process now. I have reviewed it. It s a good document. It has both the framework for moving forward to gain access to the airspace in a measured and responsive way, as Mr. Krakowski mentioned. And then there is a second part of it, which is a DOD site transition plan, which indicates the kinds of UASs that we re going to want to operate: the Army, Navy, the Air Force, and the Marines. In many of the states in the United States, as we go forward between now and 2015, so I think that you will find it a comprehensive document that shows where we are, how we re going to move forward with the FAA toward the airspace access, and then where across the country the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines are going to be basing their UASs and have need of training. And as you may be aware, the Department, and the FAA signed a Memorandum of Agreement in 2007 that initiated this process. That was followed in the Department with a stand up of a UAS Task Force, which I chair, and that s the reason that I m one of the DOD members of the ExCom. One of my roles as the Chair of the UAS Task Force, which was set up with a number of different purposes, one of which very definitely is that we get airspace access. VerDate Nov 24 Unmanned :41 Aircraft Sep 23, 2011 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\68402.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE NCRSASL - 26

37 8 And we have been working on that in that area toward, again, the measured process through the framework, which includes, as Mr. Krakowski mentioned, at El Mirage that we now have a COA in the operating area for based on ground surveillance the search I m having a moment here but the ground-based sense and avoid, which is a first step. And we re looking forward in other areas along that same way, the ground-based sense and avoid. There s a Marine base in North Carolina, Cherry Point which is looking to do the same. The Air Force has a same sort of process, at Cannon Air Force Base on that technology, as we move forward. As I said, I think that this opportunity here at Grand Forks to work toward solution to the request for the airspace is very important to us. I would close with saying that we have made significant progress in establishing a working relationship through the ExCom, and as we go forward, I expect that we will move in that area in a measured way, to ensure that we are able to afford the operators, the pilots of the UASs, the opportunity that they re going to need in the United States to do the training in support of their combat mission, while also ensuring that we are operating safely in the airspace. Thank you very much, sir. I m ready for questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Ahern follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID AHERN, DIRECTOR, PORTFOLIO SYSTEMS ACQUISITION, OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY AND LOGISTICS) Senator Dorgan, Senator Conrad, Congressman Pomeroy, and distinguished guests: thank you for the opportunity to update you and the people of North Dakota on the progress of the UAS Executive Committee s efforts to advance the integration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems into national airspace. As you are aware, Section 1036 of the 2009 Duncan-Hunter National Defense Authorization Act, the U.S. Congress recommended that the DOD and the FAA form an Executive Committee (ExCom) to act as a focal point for resolution of issues on matters of policy and procedures relating to UAS access to the National Airspace System (NAS). The sense of Congress was that progress has been lagging in the integration of UAS into the NAS for operational training, operational support to the Combatant Commanders, and support to domestic authorities in emergencies and natural disasters. Additionally, the NDAA language suggested that techniques and procedures should be rapidly developed to temporarily permit the safe operation of public UAS within the NAS until more permanent solutions can be developed or identified. The UAS Executive Committee (ExCom) In response to the 2009 NDAA language, the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Transportation agreed to form a multi-agency executive committee to: 1. Act as a focal point for the resolution of pertinent UAS issues between the DOD and the FAA; and 2. Identify solutions to the range of technical, procedural, and policy concerns arising in the integration of UAS into the NAS. In addition, the Deputy Secretaries agreed to expand the membership of the Executive Committee to include the Department of Homeland Security and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which after DOD, represent the two largest stakeholders in Federal UAS operations. Membership in the ExCom consists of two representatives each from the Department of Defense and the Federal Aviation Administration, and one representative each from the Department of Homeland Security and NASA. DOD representation consists of the executives from of the two major organizations charged with oversight of UAS issues: The DOD Policy Board on Federal Aviation, represented by Act- VerDate Nov 24 Unmanned :41 Aircraft Sep 23, 2011 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\68402.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE NCRSASL - 27

38 9 ing Executive Director Steven Pennington, and the OUSD UAS Task Force, which I chair. The first meeting of the ExCom was in October of last year, and we have continued to meet approximately bi-monthly since. One of our first tasks was to create a Charter to outline how we are organized and how we would coordinate our efforts and report on progress. I m pleased to report that Charter has been finalized and is currently being signed by the Deputy Secretaries of the three departments, as well as the NASA Administrator. Contained in that Charter are the four key goals of the ExCom: Goal 1. Coordinate and align efforts among key Federal Government agencies (FAA, DOD, DHS, and NASA) to ultimately achieve routine safe Federal public UAS operations in the National Airspace System. Goal 2. Coordinate and prioritize technical, procedural, regulatory, and policy solutions needed to deliver incremental capabilities. Goal 3. Develop a plan to accommodate the larger stakeholder community, at the appropriate time. Goal 4. Resolve conflicts among Federal Government agencies (FAA, DOD, DHS, and NASA), related to the above goals. With our goals identified, we of course have not waited on Charter signature to begin work. At our very first meeting, we stood up a Senior Steering Group to manage the activities of the ExCom, primarily through the establishment of Working Groups that are chartered to tackle specific issues that relate to increased NAS access for Federal public UAS. To date, two Working Groups have been established: The first Working Group is tasked to improve the FAA s Certificate of Authorization (CoA) process that authorized UAS flight in national airspace; and the second Working Group is charged with creating a National Airspace Access Plan for Federal public UAS. While there is significant work being done to both optimize the CoA process, and to minimize the operational restrictions that encumber UAS operations conducted under CoAs, you asked specifically for an update on the National Airspace Access Plan. I will thus focus the remainder of my statement on that plan. The ExCom NAS Access Plan The NAS Access Working Group was initiated by the ExCom SSG in December of 2009, and first met in late February of this year. Since then, they have worked to develop a process by which the ExCom member agencies will first identify and prioritize their access requirements; and subsequently how the NAS Access Working Group will analyze those requirements to determine viability and applicability of potential approaches to address them. That process has been captured in a joint NAS Access Plan that is designed to address the requirements laid out by Congress in Section 935 of the 2010 NDAA. That Plan is tasked to the Secretaries of Defense and Transportation, and was tasked to include: 1. A description of how the DOD and FAA will work together to expand NAS access for UAS; 2. Milestones for expanded access, and a Transition Plan for DOD UAS sites programmed for ; 3. Policy recommendations for UAS access policies, standards, and procedures; and 4. The resources required to execute the above. Task 1 was addressed through the creation of the ExCom, as reported to Congress in April of this year. The remaining tasks were designed to be captured in the NAS Access Plan, or the separate Department of Defense Transition Plan. Both of these documents will be finalized and submitted to Congress in October of this year. The NAS Access Plan is a joint document, submitted to Congress by the Department of Defense on behalf of the Departments of Defense and Transportation. The Plan was reviewed and coordinated with the Department of Homeland Security. As previously mentioned, the NAS Access Plan is largely process-focused, providing a roadmap of how the ExCom member agencies will work together to identify and address common NAS access requirements for Federal Public UAS. The Plan also contains joint recommendations from member agencies for specific policy, regulatory, procedural, and technological approaches to addressing the increasing needs for access on a permanent basis. The NAS Access Plan also includes a recommendation from the Department of Defense to establish a broad-based framework that categorizes groups of airspace VerDate Nov 24 Unmanned :41 Aircraft Sep 23, 2011 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\68402.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE NCRSASL - 28

39 10 needs into potential solution sets. This framework is currently being adopted by the DOD, and forms the basis for the Department s own Airspace Integration Plan. Partnered with the NAS Access Plan is the DOD Site Transition Plan, which describes the Department of Defense s intended implementation of NAS access approaches at bases that have existing or programmed UAS activities between now and Also based on the DOD s common airspace integration framework, the Site Transition Plan identifies the required level of capability, the planned approach, and the intended implementation of UAS NAS access at over a hundred locations across the US. The Site Transition Plan is currently being coordinated with the Services for validation of locations, priorities and timelines, and we expect to have it finalized in early October. It is important to note that the schedule contained in the DOD Site Transition Plan is greatly dependent upon the rapid approval and adoption of policies, regulations, procedures, and technology to meet the NAS access requirements identified by the ExCom member agencies. Without rapid progress on NAS Access Plan initiatives, the milestones contained in the Site Transition Plan entail significant schedule risk. Conclusion In closing Mr. Chairman, I m pleased to report steady progress in the advancement of NAS access for Federal public UAS. The establishment of the ExCom, and subsequent work by its Senior Steering Group and associated Working Groups, has already borne fruit in greatly improved relationships and communication at the appropriate levels of each member Department or agency. We have seen measurable improvement in many existing UAS access process, and look forward to upcoming reductions in some of the operational restrictions placed on UAS today. The creation of the NAS Access Plan, and accompanying DOD Site Transition Plan, represents a significant milestone in inter-agency cooperation. While we recognize that there is much work to be done, the outlook for improvement in routine NAS access has never been brighter. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Committee. I would be happy to answer any questions you and the members of the Committee may have. Senator DORGAN. Mr. Ahern, thank you very much. Major General Marke Gibson. General Gibson, is your title just Director of Operations, Air Force? Major General GIBSON. Sir, it s Director of Current Operations and Training Senator DORGAN. Thank you. Major General GIBSON. at the Headquarters Air Force. Senator DORGAN. You may proceed. STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL MARKE GIBSON, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR OPERATIONS, PLANS AND REQUIREMENTS, HEADQUARTERS U.S. AIR FORCE Major General GIBSON. Sir, with your indulgence, I have prepared comments to begin my testimony. Senator DORGAN. Yes. Major General GIBSON. Chairman Dorgan, Representative Pomeroy, and members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for this opportunity to speak with you today on this matter of pressing military and national concern and for today s purpose, remotely piloted aircraft. I must first express my personal thanks and that of both my Air Force Secretary Donnelly and Chief Schwartz, to you and your staffs for your unwavering support of the basing of Global Hawk and Predator in North Dakota. As you are aware, both of these systems are critical to our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. And as we speak, the men and women of the North Dakota Air National Guard are flying Predators and providing our commanders with in- VerDate Nov 24 Unmanned :41 Aircraft Sep 23, 2011 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\68402.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE NCRSASL - 29

40 11 valuable intelligence and combat capability from here in North Dakota. RPAs are now playing and will continue to play a key role in our Nation s defense and homeland support missions. These systems were developed over the last 15 years, with now over 1 million hours of operations, of technology involving technology development and operational experience, all the while held to the same exacting Air Force safety standards of manned aircraft. Since 9/11, the Air Force RPA experience has been one born of necessity. The majority of our experience and program development has resulted directly from combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. That experience has produced the most accomplished and combat-capable RPA force in the world. In our support to the war fighter, the Air Force has been successful in providing training opportunities and operating airspace at selected sites. Our challenge now, as we expand and normalize RPA force, is to provide our RPA operators local training environments that will sustain and hone their skills as they remain available for both defense and homeland support missions at a moment s notice. Concurrently, this will enable us to drive the technology and further improve safety. Historically, new weapon systems have been developed and matured in parallel with the test and training space required to support that development. This is currently progressing in such a way with the F 35 and F 22. But as you know, this was not the case with RPAs due to the fundamental disconnect between unmanned system and FAA guidance and policy that couldn t have anticipated such a technological leap. As we have seen in the RQ 4 Global Hawk at Beale Air Force Base and MQ 1 Predator at Cannon Air Force Base, hard work and cooperation between the Air Force and the Federal Aviation Administration has shown progress in providing access for RPAs to special use air space and the national airspace system. Nonetheless, I believe we all agree that collectively we have not achieved the normalized and routine access that was envisioned at the February 2009 Grand Forks meeting and that underpins the mission of the Red River Operations Workgroup. Since then, the Air Force has worked with the FAA to develop new models of operations that challenge convention and explore procedural options and leverage technology. Everyone understood it was a difficult task and that old paradigms were subject to challenge. To that end, the Air Force in cooperation with the University of North Dakota, the National Air and Space Administration, the Air Force Weather Agency, and others, have diligently provided significant amounts of data and research to support the effort. As a result, the area west of Grand Forks Air Force Base is perhaps the most completely and accurately characterized airspace for developing testing RPA access to the NAS. Admittedly, with any new endeavor, there has been no shortage of challenges. The original vision that would enable independent operations in a military operating area, without technical mitigation, is not currently available. It is evident that the technology component of a solution would require additional years of analysis and could still provide a less than optimum operating environment for training. It is our recommendation therefore, that a baseline certification of air traffic control radars for separation, combined VerDate Nov 24 Unmanned :41 Aircraft Sep 23, 2011 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\68402.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE NCRSASL - 30

41 12 with the analysis and other mitigations captured by the workgroup, be a first step. The goal is to provide North Dakota with an exceptional degree of access to non-segregated airspace. However, in the interim, we recommend a solution based on the current tools we have, such as restricted airspace. The current aeronautical proposal of restricted airspace, designed for climb and transit to airspace over Camp Grafton, we think meets safety requirements and is compatible with MQ 1 performance and given your North Dakota weather. Over the last 2 years, working with the FAA s Minneapolis Center on Central Service Area, this proposed airspace was voluntarily scaled back by us to the minimum required to support the basic MQ 1 pilot and sensor training. This reduction balances Air Force training requirements with FAA policy and minimizes the impact to other aviation assets. It should also be noted that it contains a sunset provision to divest the climb and transit airspace as soon as other technical means are introduced, such as our ground-based sense and avoid efforts. This aeronautical proposal is partly through the rulemaking progress, and if given priority, could be ready for flight operations somewhere around January of In closing, your Air Force recognizes that RPA technology has, and will continue to play, a key role in our Air Force s efforts to help defend a nation and our ability to respond to emergencies. In fact, 35 percent of our aircraft acquisition over the next 5 years is programmed to be unmanned. We have, and will remain, dedicated to safe RPA operations as we continue to develop the technology and our operational concepts. We look forward to working with the FAA, the Air National Guard, and our political leadership to enable RPA operations now and into the future. Thank you, I look forward to questions. [The prepared statement of Major General Gibson follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL MARKE GIBSON, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR OPERATIONS, PLANS AND REQUIREMENTS, HEADQUARTERS U.S. AIR FORCE Chairman Dorgan, Ranking Member DeMint, distinguished members of the Subcommittee; I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss an issue of true National Security, the integration of remotely piloted aircraft (RPAs) into the National Airspace. The Air Force is working diligently to advance standardized, procedural and technical solutions that provide all families of RPAs safe and routine access to the National Airspace System. Following 9/11, these aircraft were rushed to war and the vast majority of our experience and program development has resulted from combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. That experience has produced the most accomplished and combat capable RPA force in the world. In our effort to support the warfighter, the Air Force has been successful in providing training opportunities and operating space at selected sites. Our challenge now, as we expand and normalize the RPA force, is to provide these battle-tested operators local and regional test and training environments that will sustain and hone that combat edge so they remain available to our Combatant Commanders at a moment s notice. Concurrently, this will enable us to drive technology and improve safety. Historically, new weapon systems have been developed and matured in parallel with the test and training space required to support the mission. That is currently progressing in such a way with the F 35 and F 22. Progress toward access for unmanned systems has been slower. As we have seen with the RQ 4 Global Hawk at Beale AFB and MQ 1 Predator at Cannon AFB, hard work and cooperation between the Air Force and Federal Aviation Administration has shown progress, in providing access for RPAs to Special Use Airspace and the National Airspace System. Nonetheless, I believe we all agree that collectively we have not achieved the normalized VerDate Nov 24 Unmanned :41 Aircraft Sep 23, 2011 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\68402.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE NCRSASL - 31

42 13 and routine access that was envisioned at the February 2009 Grand Forks meeting and underpins the mission of the Red River Operations Workgroup. Since the 2009 Grand Forks meeting, the Air Force has worked with the FAA to develop new models of operations that challenge convention, explore procedural options, and leverage technology. Everyone understood it was a difficult task and that old paradigms were subject to challenge. To that end, the Air Force, in cooperation with the University of North Dakota, the National Air and Space Administration, the Air Force Weather Agency, and others, has diligently provided significant amounts of data and research to support the effort. As a result, the area west of Grand Forks Air Force Base is perhaps the most completely and accurately characterized airspace for developing processes and technologies that enable routine RPA access. Admittedly, as with any new endeavor, there have been delays and difficulties. Air Force and Air National Guard struggled with completing a Concept of Employment document. Used elsewhere in efforts to provide RPAs limited access to the National Airspace System, this document, by its nature and intent, relies on detailed descriptions and implementation strategies of mitigations and methodologies designed to achieve access at a specified location. In Grand Forks, our direction was to explore a wide range of solution sets and provide near term alternatives for effective training; as such, the Concept of Employment does not fit easily in that paradigm. We have delivered final draft to the FAA and continue to work with them and Air National Guard to craft a final product that meets the technical demands as well as the spirit of the Red River effort. It has become apparent that the original vision for a wide-area solution that would enable independent operations in Military Operating Areas without technical mitigations is not immediately available. The technology components of the solution set routinely require years of analysis and provide an operating environment that is less than optimum for training. It is our recommendation that a system-wide, baseline certification of Air Traffic Control Radars for separation assurance combined with the data, analysis and other mitigations captured by the workgroup will provide North Dakota an exceptional degree of access to non-segregated airspace. In the interim, there are a number of promising options that provide a target level of safety. We are exploring these options with the FAA. We will continue to work with the Federal Aviation Administration, the Air National Guard and our political leaders to enable Remotely Piloted Aircraft operations throughout North Dakota. This proposed standardized and templated solution for Air Force access to airspace in North Dakota represents an important step toward meeting the eventual needs of education, commercial and other governmental organizations as unmanned capabilities continue to expand. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I look forward to your questions. Senator DORGAN. General Gibson, thank you very much. And finally we ll hear from Brigadier General Leon Scott Rice, Co-Chairman of the USAF and Air National Guard Airspace and Range Executive Council. General Rice, thank you for being with us. STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL L. SCOTT RICE, CO-CHAIRMAN, USAF/ANG NATIONAL AIRSPACE AND RANGE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU Brigadier General RICE. Chairman Dorgan, thank you, as well, and Representative Pomeroy, I thank you for this opportunity to provide a few remarks on behalf of all those serving in the Air National Guard. I d like to really start with my sincere appreciation of what you two have done for the Air National Guard. Your recent visit, sir, this past spring to the deployed Guardsman in Kosovo has been tremendous. Sir, your support in 2005 of that Iraqi soldier that provided defense for our own Guardsman at risk of his own life was breathtaking. So, we re pretty impressed with your support of the Air National Guard and the National Guard in general, and, as you know, citizens within our own community. VerDate Nov 24 Unmanned :41 Aircraft Sep 23, 2011 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\68402.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE NCRSASL - 32

43 14 The Air National Guard anchors the Total Force team though, proving trained and equipped personnel to protect domestic life and property, preserve peace and order and public safety, as well as provide capabilities to our overseas contingency operations. Currently we have about 13,000 Air National Guard members deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, and other regions throughout the world. At 16 alert sites, 3 air defense sectors, the Northern Command has about 1,200 Guard Airmen standing watch over American skies today 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. And, amazingly, about 75 percent of our deployed Airmen 75 percent are all volunteers, and about 60 percent are on their second or third tours and rotations to combat zones since 9/11. The face of aviation has certainly, irrevocably changed with the entry of remotely-piloted aircraft into the mainstream of our warfighter support and combat ops. The Air National Guard is on the frontline of this new and emerging capability. And our ability to meet the demand of Combatant Commanders, and warfighters and, as well, concurrently, the domestic response, requires a flexible National Airspace system that facilitates the training of our Airmen. Today, the Air National Guard operates Remotely Piloted Aircraft in six states and represents 25 percent of the current ops over in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, over the last 2 years, the Air Force has increased the number of remotely piloted aircraft fielded by about 330 percent. This rapid growth is outpacing, significantly, our training pipelines, and exponentially increasing our need for home station training. As more sites come online around the country, we will need effective and safe solutions to place these vehicles in transit, concurrently, with other platforms through the National Airspace System. The National Guard Bureau stands ready to work with the Federal Aviation Administration, the Air Force, State and local officials, as well as the universities here in North Dakota to examine solutions and meet the training needs of our Airmen. Thank you, sir, thank you both, and I look forward to any questions you might have. [The prepared statement of Brigadier General Rice follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL L. SCOTT RICE, CO-CHAIRMAN, USAF/ANG NATIONAL AIRSPACE AND RANGE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU Chairman Dorgan, Ranking Member DeMint, distinguished members of the Subcommittee; I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the integration of unmanned aerial systems into the National Airspace. The National Guard continues to work to develop a safe and secure program for Predator and Global Hawk training within the continental United States. The Air National Guard anchors the Total Air Force team, providing trained and equipped units and personnel to protect domestic life and property; preserving peace, order, and public safety; and providing interoperable capabilities required for Overseas Contingency Operations. The Air National Guard, therefore, is unique by virtue of serving as both a reserve component of the Total Air Force and as the air component of the National Guard. By any measure, the Air National Guard is accessible and available to the Combatant Commanders, Air Force and our Nation s Governors. Currently, the Nation has over 13,000 Air National Guard members deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other overseas regions. At 16 alert sites, 3 air defense sectors, and Northern Command, 1,200 Guard Airmen vigilantly stand watch over America s skies. Amazingly, VerDate Nov 24 Unmanned :41 Aircraft Sep 23, 2011 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\68402.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE NCRSASL - 33

44 15 75 percent of our deployed Airmen are volunteers, and 60 percent are on their second or third rotations to combat zones. In the past year, Air Guard members helped their fellow citizens battle floods, mitigate the aftermath of ice storms, fight wild fires, and provide relief from the devastating effects of a tsunami. Early in the year, Guard members from Kentucky, Arizona, and Missouri responded to debilitating ice storms, which resulted in the largest National Guard call-up in Kentucky s history. Last spring, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota Air National Guard members provided rescue relief and manpower in response to Midwest flooding. In September, the Hawaii Air National Guard sent personnel from their Chemical, Biological, Nuclear, Radiological and High Yield Explosive Enhanced Response Force Package (CERFP), a command and control element, and a mortuary affairs team, to American Samoa in response to an 8.4 magnitude earthquake-generated tsunami. These are just a few examples of how the Air Guard provides exceptional expertise, experience, and capabilities to mitigate disasters and their consequences. The face of aviation has irrevocably changed with the entry of Remotely Piloted Aircraft into the mainstream of warfighter support and combat operations. The Air National Guard is on the frontline of this new and emerging capability. Our ability to meet the demands of the Combatant Commanders, warfighters and growing domestic response needs require a flexible National Airspace framework that facilitates the training of our Airmen. Today, the Air National Guard operates Remotely Piloted Aircraft in six states and represents approximately 25 percent of the total Air Force capability. This critical Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance platform is in constant demand by our warfighters and its growth is a top priority for the Department of Defense. In fact, during the past 5 years, we have more than tripled our overall capacity. The Air Force continues to rapidly increase its Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance capability and capacity to support combat operations. Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance provides timely, fused, and actionable intelligence to the Joint force, from forward deployed locations and globally distributed centers around the globe. The exceptional operational value of Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance assets has led Joint force commanders in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Horn of Africa to continually increase their requests for these forces. Over the last 2 years, the Air Force increased the number of remotely piloted aircraft fielded by 330 percent. This rapid growth rate is outpacing our training pipelines and exponentially increasing our need for home station training. As more sites come online around the country, we will need effective and safe solutions in place for transiting National Airspace. Remotely Piloted Aircraft have a defined requirement and a need for equal access to the National Airspace System to meet mission training. The Federal Aviation Administration has defined what types of airspace these assets are currently able to operate within as restricted areas, warning areas and non-joint use Class D airspace. The preferred lateral dimensions for Remotely Piloted Aircraft Operating Space are 50 nautical miles by 100 nautical miles with a minimum of a 5,000 foot altitude block below 18,000 feet. A minimum of five nautical mile cylinder of airspace is required over Air-to-Ground Range impact areas for air-to-surface laser operations and weapons deliveries. Minimally, Remotely Piloted Aircraft can operate within a lateral dimension of 20 nautical miles by 20 nautical miles within a 5,000 foot altitude block below 18,000 feet. The Remotely Piloted Aircraft will use the Operating Space to train with other air and ground assets to accomplish the missions of both assets. We stand ready to work with the Federal Aviation Administration, the Air Force and state/local authorities as they examine solutions for meeting the training needs of our Airmen. The men and women of the Air National Guard greatly appreciate the cooperation and support you have provided in the past and look forward to working with you as we meet today s challenges. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I look forward to your questions. Senator DORGAN. General Rice, thank you very much. Let me go through a list of questions that I will try to put on the record, here, what I see as some of the difficulties. My understanding is that the FAA says the Unmanned Aerial Vehicles at Grand Forks cannot train in regular airspace, that would be the FAA s position you correct me if I m wrong, Mr. Krakowski, because of current regulations. The Special Operations VerDate Nov 24 Unmanned :41 Aircraft Sep 23, 2011 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\68402.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE NCRSASL - 34

45 16 indicates UAS operations should normally be conducted within restricted areas, that is, the FAA essentially says, If you re going to train, you have to train in restricted areas, and except for a small box near Camp Grafton for laser operations, which is a restricted area, I believe the FAA has largely opposed up until this point establishing restricted air space. So, let me ask a question. My understanding now is the Air Force is seeking a box, 35-mile by 45-mile box, south of Camp Grafton that s the Air Force current request. What I m going to do is take this from the specific local to the national issue. But, my understanding is the Air Force currently is wanting a 35-mile by 45- mile box adjacent to Camp Grafton, south. Is that accurate? Brigadier General RICE. That s correct, Senator. Senator DORGAN. And let me ask you that has come down substantially from what was originally requested, is that correct? Brigadier General RICE. Yes, sir. To the graphic, we have reduced from the northern box and transit areas, simply to the southern red square and transit to and from the base. Senator DORGAN. So that s the request, at this point? Brigadier General RICE. Yes, sir. Senator DORGAN. All right. And my understanding is the FAA has indicated that s too big, at this point, and the National Guard has said, anything smaller is not acceptable. And let me read if I might from a June 15 submission from the 119th, in Fargo, they indicated that the small restricted area, which is the area for hazardous, where lasers are the laser activities are allowed have said that, This would leave the wing in a position with little recourse to accomplish realistic training for a new mission that is Congressionally-mandated. So, what the 119th is saying is that this box of 35 by 45 miles is what is, what they believe is necessary for training, is that correct? Brigadier General RICE. Yes, sir, according to Wing Commander Rick Gibney, and the National Guard, that s our position. That picture on there, that 35 by 40 box with a small circle around Camp Grafton is the minimum amount of area. And this picture doesn t do justice to the request, because there s also a three-dimensional portion of that; it s a 4,000-foot block that can be adjusted down, as well. But that is the minimum airspace from a God s-eye view, and then you can stratify it and look at the side. There s a 4,000-foot block, up or down. Senator DORGAN. And where is the current restricted airspace that allows operations with laser training? There is that s a very small area; where is that? Brigadier General RICE. Currently, the restricted airspace is a very small circle inside of that circle which is in the box. There s a very small Army range down there, and we re expanding that circle. That circle that you can see, that s cut off at the top in the middle of the box, represents the minimal laser area required for remotely piloted aircraft training. Senator DORGAN. So, that is currently restricted airspace? Brigadier General RICE. No, that s not currently restricted. There s a very small area within that, that s currently restricted. Senator DORGAN. OK, inside of that. VerDate Nov 24 Unmanned :41 Aircraft Sep 23, 2011 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\68402.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE NCRSASL - 35

46 17 So, the question we re talking about here is the large the larger box, which is substantially reduced from what was originally requested and required. Brigadier General RICE. That s correct, sir. It represents about an 80-percent reduction of our original request. Senator DORGAN. All right. Mr. Krakowski, my understanding is, you know, I wrote the provision that requires Section 935 of the National Defense Authorization Act. I included that provision which required DOD and FAA to develop a national solution for military U.S. access in the National airspace. It is, I guess, what caused the Executive Committee to be formed. In the legislation I had requested a report, April 2010, this year in April of this year that has not been submitted. But, I understand it will be submitted within the next month, or so, according to you, Mr. Ahern, is that correct? Mr. AHERN. Yes, sir. Senator DORGAN. All right. Now, having created an Executive Committee, having worked on this and understanding what I just described about the requirement for restricted airspace, of the 35 by 45, my understanding of the FAA s position, at this point, is they don t like restricted airspace, and don t want to create restricted airspace. And yet, in your testimony, you talked about how you might create restricted airspace. So, tell me, if you can, what s your what the FAA s thinking is on creating restricted airspace, here? Mr. KRAKOWSKI. OK. Senator, I think it s a mischaracterization to say that we don t want to try to work a restricted airspace solution out here. We re ready to move on that path. We re waiting for those two issues that I talked about, the final concept of employment, and the safety study that needs to be submitted to us, so we can start moving that forward. Again, that is a one- to two-year process of public comments and all of the different regulatory things, and docket issues that you have to deal with to create that. Senator DORGAN. But how sorry to interrupt you, but you re waiting for two things, when might you expect to receive that, before you begin a process that will take another couple of years, at least? Mr. KRAKOWSKI. I understand within a month. That s my understanding, although I ll ask the DOD to respond to that. Major General GIBSON. Sir, it s my understanding it s ready to be submitted. Senator DORGAN. All right. Let me, then I interrupted you, but can you tell us, if you begin to proceed in a rulemaking for restricted airspace, what s the minimum and maximum time you would expect that to take? Mr. KRAKOWSKI. One to two years, going through all of the different comment processes and docket processes that you have to go to do that. Senator DORGAN. Is it the desire of the FAA to move in that direction? VerDate Nov 24 Unmanned :41 Aircraft Sep 23, 2011 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\68402.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE NCRSASL - 36

47 18 Mr. KRAKOWSKI. Absolutely. We consider any submission as a request that we take seriously, and want to move forward through the process appropriately. In fact, I want to commend DOD and the Air Guard for taking that larger hunk of airspace that was first proposed, and scaling it down to something that they can use, without capturing too much airspace from the other users in the system. I think this is going to be helpful in moving this forward in a more positive vector. Senator DORGAN. And if restricted airspace is not accomplished by the time we have the bed-down of Global Hawks, or Predators, here, how would you anticipate the training and operations be made available in front of a time when restricted airspace is made available? Mr. KRAKOWSKI. I think I ll ask the DOD to talk about the training impacts. We can fly the missions now, using the Customs and Border Protection techniques to get up into what we call Class A airspace. There are abilities to actually do some training. Now, it doesn t satisfy the requested needs of the Air Guard and the Air Force and DOD at this time. Obviously, once we get the restricted airspace in place, we ll be able to do that. But, to the extent that some training could be done, literally, now if the machines were available, we think that we could start moving it forward. Senator DORGAN. You know, I ve worked a lot with the FAA, including the new administrator, and have a lot of respect for the FAA. But, the one thing that seems to me to stand out with respect to the FAA is that generally it s very, very hard to meet time deadlines. And I understand, I mean, we re talking about safety and, you know, things that are very serious. But, one of my concerns is this if it takes, let s say, 2 years to finish a rulemaking, then let it slide some, because almost everything slides, as far as I m concerned, with the FAA. And you ve got operations necessities here with Global Hawks or Predators, because they re here, and they don t have training capability. My guess is that I m going to ask the Air Force, is there a disconnect, here, between one we might get restricted airspace, when that might happen, and the rather minimum training capabilities that would exist under what Mr. Krakowski has just described? Major General GIBSON. Sir, it s my understanding that as we proceed down that path either, and we term this restricted airspace, I think in the lexicon, it s some form of segregated airspace. It may end up being the term restricted, it might be part of the TFR that DHS is currently flying under, but some sort of segregated airspace that we would be able to operate in. That, being tied to the DHS operational hours that they re doing in support of Homeland Security, or being required, initially, to go to 18,000 feet and above to get into the class of airspace, we have a number of concerns with that both with the aircraft and its ability if it got into the area out there and had any kind of malfunction, or in fact, the weather dictates it. If we have to go to that altitude, given North Dakota s statistical review, we lose 63 percent of our ability VerDate Nov 24 Unmanned :41 Aircraft Sep 23, 2011 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\68402.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE NCRSASL - 37

48 19 to fly and train in that environment. Therefore, we re back to asking for lower altitudes to work into transit. Senator DORGAN. Would you, and perhaps General Rice and Mr. Ahern, describe in layman s terms for people who may wonder, how is it that you can put a vehicle up in the airspace with no pilot in it, anywhere, at any time, and feel that it s not going to diminish the safety with respect to general aviation and commercial aviation? So, I mean, I think I understand the answer to that question, but why don t you describe how that can be accomplished in a way that does not, in any way, diminish safety? Major General GIBSON. Well, sir, first of all, I mean, there s always some level of risk involved in aviation, but we think this, again, with the experience that we ve had, now, flying in fairly dense environments in our combat operations, mixing with other manned assets, I think one of the numbers we threw out were the numbers at Kandahar on an annual basis, approximates the Miami International, the number of traffic counts. And we move our unmanned systems in and out of that airfield without shutting it down, without any special segregation they move like any other aircraft. You have several sensors with the vehicle and ability to identify where it is just like any other aircraft, using transponders to air traffic control, and others you have the sensor ball that you can slew, and help clear the flight path. And we have, as we mentioned, some of the new technology with ground-based sense and avoid, we re actually able to pull into the operator s cockpit, if you will, those radar feeds to give him a sense of what is going on around him in 360 degrees. So, there are a number of ways Senator DORGAN. You mentioned operations at Kandahar and that integrates UAVs directly into a very busy airport in which fighter planes and C 130s and all kinds of aircraft are coming in and out? I assume that we have learned an enormous amount, operating UAVs in that region? Major General GIBSON. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Senator DORGAN. And integrating it into airspace control? Major General GIBSON. And again, we don t shut down and I would also offer, there is also some civil traffic that arrives in and out of that airfield routinely, as well. But we have learned a great deal there, and perhaps even more so as we move into a combat arena, where we re mixing these types of assets very close proximity to other aircraft that enter there other manned fighter aircraft and how to deconflict those and to maintain situational awareness. Senator DORGAN. Tell us, if you would, what, specifically do you need at this point? As a result of BRAC, we now have, in this region, Global Hawks and Predators coming. Homeland Security is here, of course. What do you need to make sure that you don t have a situation that you have aircraft that you can t train with? And when do you need it? Major General GIBSON. Well, sir, I think we ve stated along with the support of the Guard and as we have operated elsewhere, much like DHS, I think the first step with the FAA to meet everyone s safety concerns is some form of segregated air space. We kind of see this in kind of a three-phased approach, if you will, the first VerDate Nov 24 Unmanned :41 Aircraft Sep 23, 2011 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\68402.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE NCRSASL - 38

49 20 phase is to segregate them from other known traffic, so that we can guarantee some level of safety and security. The second portion is work with the FAA and our technology that we re developing forward, to use a ground-based sense and avoid, in other words the ability to see into that airspace with radar and help sanitize the airspace so we can deconflict conflicts early. And then as we move into the next generation system of air traffic control, beginning to put sensors kind of a sense and avoid airborne sense and avoid system on these platforms that will give them, essentially, an end-game ability to avoid, even if it surpasses the operator. Senator DORGAN. And I asked, by when do you need these things in place, and are we on track to do all of that? Major General GIBSON. Sir, I think we have a number of those in place already at some of our other locals. But, as I mentioned earlier, 2012 is our current plan for when we think we ll be prepared to fly predators out of Grand Forks in early 2012 so a little over a year from now. Senator DORGAN. Are we on pace to be able to meet the needs for training and for airspace necessary for that training at that point? Major General GIBSON. Sir, that s kind of a speculative point, I would say we re certainly against the cusp of being able to make that happen as we ve outlined our need and the concerns that the FAA has with their processes that they have to go through. Senator DORGAN. So, let me interpret what you are you worried that we may not meet that test? Major General GIBSON. Yes, sir. Yes, in fact I am, and I defer to local Guard position. Brigadier General RICE. Yes, sir. I definitely think at this point, we re late. If we look at January 2012 as our line in the sand when we require segregated airspace to do training, we re late to need. If we have a one- to two-year process prior to requesting our concept of employment to get a certificate of operation to operate, with a certificate of operation taking a period of time, as well, anywhere from a few months to 6 months to 9 months, and then, prior to that, we have to have this one- to two-year process, we are late to need if you add those up sequentially. And sir, I would like to add one more piece. We talked about the minimum required airspace, and we kind of focused in on that box of 35 miles to 45 miles around the laser area and that laser circle. General Gibson alluded to the fact that there are those other two pieces for a total of three, that we need. Not only do we need the launch and recovery element and a piece of that, that has more flexibility than Customs and Border Protection as ours, during the operation, that half-moon around the base itself, but also the transit corridor that is below 18,000 feet, as another segregated piece of airspace to get to the box. So, each one of those components are essential to conduct training operations in North Dakota. Senator DORGAN. Mr. Ahern, did you want to add to that from the Pentagon s perspective? Mr. AHERN. I ve been listening, and this is a good summary. I think we ll learn a lot about getting the job done, with the FAA VerDate Nov 24 Unmanned :41 Aircraft Sep 23, 2011 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\68402.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE NCRSASL - 39

50 21 aside to General Gibson there is an Air Force plan to move or to develop a ground-based sense and avoid system out here at Grand Forks, he s going to have to look into what its delivery kind of thing is, as we were talking earlier about the clearing out of the segregated area, the data on that. The other thing I would say is the transit corridor, as well as the operations in the terminal area, along with the framework path that we have set for ourselves, Senator. It is exactly along the current paradigm is line of sight, chase aircraft, individuals down there with the idea of moving toward ground-based sense and avoid to enable us to clear out but it takes time. I agree with you, and I agree with General Gibson that this technology, this way of operating is something that we can envision, but we re going to have to go carefully, to ensure that we don t get out ahead of what we can do. The fact that we have the COAA at El Mirage is just a great first step in the terminal area. Now, you go to Cherry Point, and as I understand it, we re looking at both the terminal area and small transit area, out to the restricted area. That alone will help us to move smarter, here, at Grand Forks as we move in that direction, but I am sensitive to the time. That we have to but we have to respect the Nation s airspace. As General Schwartz said, We re going to get to yes. And I understand the problem, I understand the opportunity as I said in my opening remarks, we re beginning to learn to work with each other, the FAA, the DOD, closer. Of course, we have a long history with the FAA over the manned fixed aircraft and the rotary wing. But this is a different paradigm in the use of the airspace and developing that rhythm of working with each other is taking some time. But, we are getting that rhythm together. We have the COAs, we have a special COAA that I mean, the new one out at El Mirage. So, to sum up yes, I see where we are, I see where we re going, it fits into our framework. I understand the Grand Forks timing, and now we have to begin to work on getting there. Senator DORGAN. Yes. And actually, this then becomes a much larger issue when you talk about the Nation, the future Brigadier General RICE. It s an opportunity. Senator DORGAN. the, you talk about a third of the airplanes being ordered are UAVs, I mean, we understand that, you know, 20 years from now, we ll look in the rear-view mirror and see that the use of UAVs, integrated into the National Airspace has become routine and very safe. Mr. Krakowski, no one is pushing the FAA to do something that would diminish, in any way, safety in our Nation s airspace that s not the point. The point today, however, is that if we are going to, as a result of BRAC, do realignments and missions, and so on, with respect to bases, this base is now, sees all of its tankers gone and we ll see Predators and Global Hawks arrive, and has a need, then, to develop a training space, restricted, segregated it doesn t matter what you call it that they have substantially diminished south of Devil s Lake. The question for me, and the reason I wanted to have this hearing is, are we moving along to accomplish what needs to be done by the time it needs to be done? Or, will we find ourselves in the VerDate Nov 24 Unmanned :41 Aircraft Sep 23, 2011 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\68402.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE NCRSASL - 40

51 22 year 2012 kind of scratching our heads trying to figure out, Well, how did we get all of that to happen? We ve got the airplanes, and the crews, and so on, but we don t have the capability to do the kind of training we want. I understand you can do ground observers, and chase aircraft and so on, but I think that is not something that the military believes would work, here, very effectively for the kind of robust training that is necessary. So, let me now turn to you and then I m going to turn to my colleague, Congressman Pomeroy. Mr. Krakowski, you ve just heard the circumstances of January It s now September And you just described to me, probably a 2-year if everything works right, you said one to two, but I m, having worked a lot with the FAA you ve described a 2-year circumstance that takes us into the end of 2012, perhaps the beginning of 2013, and so it seems to me that there s a mismatch, here, of need and capability. Tell me how you see this, because you re working on the Committee to try to find a way to solve it. Mr. KRAKOWSKI. Yes, sir. First of all, I agree with General Gibson and his characterization that segregation is the first thing that s practical to do. Groundbased sense and avoid, and the radars that were talked about, is really where we really want to go so we don t have to confiscate airspace and limit operations. The faster that we can learn from El Mirage and do that, the faster we ll be able to move on a much more flexible plan, here at Grand Forks. The timeframe is tight. Candidly, we re inspecting some of the documents that we are expected to get this month, earlier in the year, and we feel that the delay in getting those documents has been hurtful to making the timeline, but we don t see any reason that once the machines come in here in 2012, that we re not going to be able to operate them, with the caveat that the restricted airspace does take that regulatory time to create. We re going to have to be patient with that, by law there s no practical way that we know of that we can accelerate that, except for us to work as hard as we can. Using the COAs, and if we can get some ground-sensed radars, or some ground-based sensing in a timely manner, as a mitigation, we can move very quickly. But, we re here and ready to support the mission to the maximum extent possible. Senator DORGAN. But, what I have heard the military say is that short of restricted or segregated airspace, the kinds of things you have done to accommodate Homeland Security s flights are not robust enough to allow the kind of training that s necessary in that interim period. That s what worries me. Mr. KRAKOWSKI. Right. Senator DORGAN. Do you understand that? Mr. KRAKOWSKI. I don t have a good, regulatory mechanism to confiscate or segregate airspace just by kind of imminent domain. We don t really do that, unless it s a national security issue, directly threatening the homeland, which is what we do with Temporary Flight Restrictions for the President and all sorts of issues like that. Because it is national airspace and we have other uses VerDate Nov 24 Unmanned :41 Aircraft Sep 23, 2011 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\68402.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE NCRSASL - 41

52 23 involved, we have to go through a process that respects all of those constituents. We ve been working in a lot of areas of the country, and as I said, we have 140 DOD COAs right now, working in our national airspace to facilitate RPAs and unmanned aircraft. We ll keep working the issue. Senator DORGAN. Well, a report that s submitted to us under the provision I included in the Authorization Act, will that report give us timelines? Mr. KRAKOWSKI. The report is more of a national access plan, which is kind of our overall approach to getting integrated RPAs and unmanned aircraft into the system. That was really the sense of the report and I think it speaks to around 2018, as I recall the document. David? Mr. AHERN. It is phased, Senator the 2018 that Hank mentioned is a full operational capability for the airborne sense and avoid. Back up, I think, 2013, is the ground-based sense and avoid, and come back and come back. As I mentioned earlier, there s a framework that we re working under, starting with a line-of-sight that you are familiar with, of course, and moving toward the, what we call dynamic access, with a file-and-fly kind of thing, and it is a period of time. So, yes sir, there is a chart in there with a schedule, but it doesn t get to each one of the bases. But there is part of the report that does show the plans for the bases, as I mentioned earlier, in just 33, 35 states a lot of states so that is there. Senator DORGAN. Would you submit for me, as best you can, even if it s informally, a timeline for the creation of space here that s necessary? I d like that submission if you would, and yes? Mr. KRAKOWSKI. Yes, I mean, Senator DORGAN. That s fair, I think. Mr. KRAKOWSKI. once we get the documents that we re expecting this month, I think we ll have the foundation for us to be able to do that. Senator DORGAN. All right, and one last question and I ll turn to Congressman Pomeroy. General Gibson, you ve just heard this discussion, what about 2012? It s now, let s say, September of 2012, you don t have restricted airspace, how tell me about your training operations with the fleet of Predators and Global Hawks here in this region. Major General GIBSON. Well, sir, and I invite General Rice to follow up from a local perspective, but clearly, if you re unable to train in that mission set, then the overall readiness is not met and people are planning on that capability, both forward and, Heaven forbid, in a homeland support effort if it were to arise. So, I m sure if we got to that point, first of all, I would state that it s not going to meet our needs, but that we would have to go to contingencies of moving those folks somewhere else to have an ability to train, to some extent, in an interim basis until we could get there, locally. Senator DORGAN. Yes. And that s not satisfactory, because we ve had a lot of time, here, understanding what s going to happen at the Grand Forks Air Force Base. It s not as if BRAC happened yesterday. VerDate Nov 24 Unmanned :41 Aircraft Sep 23, 2011 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\68402.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE NCRSASL - 42

53 24 So, I think, two things we need to, Mr. Krakowski, work with, you know, as quickly as we can to solve this problem, and I would guess, General Gibson, the military is going to have to if there is a period of time here to patch training operations, you re going to have to find a way to do that. But this is, you know, it s disappointing, if we find ourselves in 2012 without the capability we need. And so, from this hearing, I hope I m going to await anxiously, the report that was required last April, and I hopefully I get it next month either later this month or next month, and then have some discussions again about where do we go from here, and how do we fix this, if there s a time that s not in which the training capability doesn t exist, here. Major General GIBSON. Sir, I just wanted to follow up that we both realize between us and the FAA, and Mr. Krakowski and I do exchange cell phone numbers, we have been able to work through Haiti and other contingencies with some expedition and, in making it happen. So, we realize we have to partner, and we realize both of us have components of this portion that we need to solve, you know, on our side, if you will, before we are able to achieve solutions. So, I think with the right focus, I m still optimistic that it can be done. Senator DORGAN. Congressman Pomeroy? Congressman POMEROY. Senator Dorgan, I m very pleased that you ve brought the Committee here to have this very timely hearing, and I m concerned. I ve been disappointed with the slippage of timeline with the Air Force getting the RPAs here, to fully realize that we re on a timeline where, upon their delayed arrival, they won t be able to fly, it just raises real questions about whether or not the mission plan for the base will be operative, in any kind of timely way. The discussion across the panel tells me that in the 19 months since we last met here, progress has been made on process, but I m not seeing sufficient product out of the process to really move things along operationally. The I think it s quite clear that there are a measure of interim accommodations from the FAA, but that they fall short of what the Air Force needs. So, we must not take much comfort in those interim arrangements, they don t get the job done. And I acknowledge, and I think it must be recognized, the Air Force has made some very serious accommodations to try and make this thing work. And in the meantime, as I understand it, the training need grows exponentially as the number of RPAs coming into the force structure continues to grow exponentially. So, we re left in the situation that we ve got terrific assets at Grand Forks Air Force Base, we ve got the assigned mission, we ve got an urgent training need, but we re not on a timeline that s going to let this all work in an orderly way, because of, essentially, the inability to get this segregated airspace issue addressed at the FAA level. Now, Mr. Krakowski, I think Mr. Ahern used the words, this isn t your run-of-the-mill flight issue raised to the FAA. We are in a different paradigm. You are looking at things in the airspace that don t have people in them, and that has never been confronted be- VerDate Nov 24 Unmanned :41 Aircraft Sep 23, 2011 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\68402.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE NCRSASL - 43

54 25 fore at the FAA. So, you ve got to appreciate everything you ve told us about the difficult the importance of the questions before the FAA and the difficulty of the challenge we have to accept that, and understand that. At the same time, we re talking about a one- to two-year comment period. Well, what do we what does it take to make it 1 year instead of 2 years? Obviously, have an awful lot to do with keeping us on a timeline to get us operational in early Mr. KRAKOWSKI. Well, I think the approach is as soon as we get all of the required documentation, which we hope to get here, shortly, we ll move as aggressively as we can and try to move it as close to one year, as possible. I think that would be an effort that we would want to try to do, without question. In the meantime, knowing that we may not make that one year goal, because of those typical government issues, we do want to have the flexibility available for the Air Force to start flying in some fashion, like we have in other parts of the country. You ve got our commitment to work both of those strains as diligently as we can. Congressman POMEROY. But I appreciate that, but I do think that we have to come away with this understanding from what we ve heard exchanged across the panel, that those interim arrangements fall really far short. They re better than nothing, but they are far short of basically giving an ops tempo out there at the base that is really going to be required, given the kind of investment that you ve got in equipment and manpower. Mr. KRAKOWSKI. Well, one thing that could shorten it up is if we could get a ground-based radar like we re testing at El Mirage, and where we ve used in other places. If something like that could be made available earlier and that s more on the DOD side in terms of supplying it, that would be helpful. Congressman POMEROY. Yes. Mr. Ahern, what about that? We re getting into a real problem relative to training. Would that be some kind would that be an infrastructure investment that might be considered to help us get through this period? Mr. AHERN. Sir, as I mentioned earlier, not only have we wanted, at El Mirage, but at different same, but same kind of high-fidelity 3 D radar is going with the Marines at Cherry Point, and the Air Force at Canon, yet a third one. So, a volume search, air search radar now, I m going to defer to the FAA, because I m getting out ahead of what I really know but but air search volume air search radars exist. And I don t think we have to make a new one for the UASs. The issue for the Air Force that we ll be working on is identifying one that s certified and what its job is, and positioning it or several in this area in order to do the terminal clearance first, and then the transit, because the Air Force clears out huge areas in Afghanistan and other operating areas, it s for Blue Force deconfliction, kind of thing. So, they know how to do it. So, to answer your question, I think that that is an avenue that we would go down to ensure that we get the ground search radar in here, and certified. And I think that I hope I m using the right word if not certified, validated, it will be a certified radar, but VerDate Nov 24 Unmanned :41 Aircraft Sep 23, 2011 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\68402.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE NCRSASL - 44

55 26 validated for this position, here. What we expect if it s sited correctly, survey, it s traffic I mean, it would be a period of time Congressman POMEROY. But that s important. If DOD makes an extra push on a range of equipment infrastructure, that might assist the FAA, if I m hearing Mr. Krakowski right, in getting to yes on this airspace question. Mr. AHERN. And, I think and I ve talked to General Gibson about it, and it s something that is in the plan, already, the question is how to do it. Major General GIBSON. Just of note, Congressman Pomeroy, we the Air Force saw this need some time back and we grabbed a it s termed an ASR 11, a newer version of air traffic control radar that was headed to Korea, and we ve actually redirected that to Grand Forks. It will be in place around the middle of summer 2012, sited and then will begin to it s a little late to need, still, but then we ll begin siting it and doing testing with it in conjunction with the FAA to see how well it does, in fact, survey that airspace. There might be an opportunity to do an interim a mobile radar that we could bring in that might be a part of this interim solution. Congressman POMEROY. Couldn t it be accelerated? I mean, if you identified the equipment, why couldn t it be here, and operative before mid-2012? Major General GIBSON. Sir, I really hesitate speculating whether one would be available. We have some that are in mind, as we said, we re doing tests in other locales already. We could take that for the record, to explore the possibility of being able to get one here earlier that s a mobile Congressman POMEROY. We ve all just got to push, here. So, we try to get this 2 years down to 1 year, on the one hand, but you make Hank s job easier by trying to get this up here before mid- 2012, and it seems to me that we could if everyone is really pushing on these various fronts, we could make some real progress. General Rice, can you give us some better sense of the mounting training need that our Nation is experiencing, the utilization of RPAs in the field and who is operating them? Brigadier General RICE. Our as you said, our training need is growing exponentially. And we re kind of coming to a point where technology and manufacturing of RPAs and those are ahead of our training pipeline. Congressman POMEROY. That s right. Brigadier General RICE. So, really, our limiting factor, now, is our training airspace for the crews themselves. And so, right now we have 6 remotely piloted aircraft platforms, Predators in the state, in boxes, waiting to be opened up and put into the sky. And that s not the limiting factor. The limiting factor is actually the crews themselves. With a need to grow our capability, in theater, all of our crews are going right into operations, into combat operations. And they re flying right now, right here, today, in Fargo. And so, as those crews come off of a cycle, we don t want to have these crews in a constant combat mode, we take them out of the combat cycle particularly Guardsman and put them back into an operational Reserve status, get them into the training programs, VerDate Nov 24 Unmanned :41 Aircraft Sep 23, 2011 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\68402.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE NCRSASL - 45

56 27 that s where we foresee our cycle and our number of crews will start maturing, and we can normalize that cycle, somewhere around approximately a year from now to really get into having crews off of the operational schedule, into a training schedule in that spring of And a majority of them will start in 2012, in January. Congressman POMEROY. I m told we have that schedule normalized, as you say. We re asking an unacceptable level of, basically, combat duty by our Air Guard running these RPAs, right? I mean, I know that the tasking in Fargo has been very heavy, more than was originally anticipated, and I do worry about the human toll it s taking. Brigadier General RICE. Yes, sir. And we are certainly concerned about that. But, as you set a goal, set an objective, set an operational need for the military and when you look at the sacrifices our Active Duty and Guardsmen are doing, on the ground, right now, and you take an operation like the North Dakota Air National Guard and Army National Guard, and they say, Hey, this is easy to justify, it s easy for me to sit here in my home State and do an operational mission out of Fargo and say, I can see, real-time, my affect on this war effort, and that motivates people to keep going. It has been really pretty impressive to see the synergy that we have as a total force, between the Active and the Guard, to get to that point. Congressman POMEROY. And you it has been so impressive to watch. But, you know Brigadier General RICE. Now, our role as leadership is to anticipate when we feel that the normalization, the leveling off, the growing state that we re in now, becomes a normal operation where we start to cycle people. We have enough people that we can start to do our rotations, start to do our cycles. Congressman POMEROY. Because unlike active duty, the Guards stay. They re doing this for a much longer period of time, correct? Brigadier General RICE. That s correct. Congressman POMEROY. And if you don t have other people to cycle through, they just keep on doing it. Brigadier General RICE. That s correct. And as we look at the strength of the National Guard, our cost-effectiveness, our strength is our experience, and our ability to take that experience, put it into an operational reserve, train in an airspace like this, in North Dakota, and then put them right back into the fight. Congressman POMEROY. We want this base used, and used actively. It has a long history of playing an important role in our Nation s defense structure, and we look forward to it being fully utilized in this way in the near future. The we also appreciate, in the broader sense, the important national contribution this base will use, will make when it s fully utilized, so we hope we quickly get there. General Rice, I would just tell you, General Sprynczynatyk recognized the service to the Global War on Terror of 300 more than 300 at the Air Guard in Fargo. We are very proud of the role the Air Guard has played in terms of the Global War on Terror and these, just tremendous airmen served our country so well, we re very proud of them. VerDate Nov 24 Unmanned :41 Aircraft Sep 23, 2011 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\68402.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE NCRSASL - 46

57 28 Mr. Chairman, that concludes my questions, thank you. Senator DORGAN. Congressman, thank you very much. Mr. Krakowski, let me try to clear up something, if I may. We were told by the FAA last month, as we were inquiring, that the FAA, by its own rule, cannot establish restricted areas for non-hazardous operations, and UAS flights are considered non-hazardous. Therefore, the FAA said, We can only create restricted airspace, or approve restricted areas for laser operations, that s the very small box. Your testimony this morning seems to say something different than that, so explain to me what all of that means. Mr. KRAKOWSKI. Well, we understand that there s a desire to have laser activity expanded in that box, as I understand. Major General GIBSON. Not the impact point, but the ability to maneuver nearby. Mr. KRAKOWSKI. Right, right which we think would give us sufficient justification to consider that. Senator DORGAN. So, the 45 by 35-mile box that the military now says it needs for training, is an area that you can, by your own rule, proceed to establish as a restricted area? Mr. KRAKOWSKI. We are interested in trying to move the rule forward. Now, we ll get public comments, we ll go through all of the processes, I can t guarantee what the outcome s going to be, but we think we can actually go ahead and try to move it forward. Senator DORGAN. But it is different than what the staff of our Subcommittee was told a month ago. We were told that was not a possible solution. Mr. KRAKOWSKI. We re willing to move forward once we get the documentation this month. Senator DORGAN. All right, so maybe we re making some progress. I just I think I understand what you re now saying on the record, but as I said, that s different than what we were told a month ago. Mr. KRAKOWSKI. If I may, Senator. Senator DORGAN. Yes, please. Mr. KRAKOWSKI. You know, this is a dilemma not just for DOD and the Air Force, but for us, as well. We ve never had to do things like this with the airspace before, so we re trying to learn, we have an ExCom set up, Dave and I and the rest of the organizations. For example, NASA and DHS are part of the ExCom, to try to figure out what exactly to do with these things. And, as Mr. Ahern and I were talking earlier this morning, we re going to have to be creative, I think, moving forward. Senator DORGAN. But, we have done some of this before. I mean, I did some small amount of flying earlier in my life, and I ve flown in what are called oil-burner routes that are designated in North Dakota and flown out of a steep turn as I was learning to fly, to find a B 52 is bearing down on me, and I was in the wrong place, I guess. You know, the fact is, we have established areas with training capability low-level training capability, B 52s and in the old days they were called oil-burner routes I think, I don t know what they re called now. And I understand there are differences now in that there s no one in the cockpit of this airplane. On the other hand, this aircraft, in most cases, is probably even more sophisticated and has sub- VerDate Nov 24 Unmanned :41 Aircraft Sep 23, 2011 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\68402.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE NCRSASL - 47

58 29 stantially more sophisticated sensors to be able to understand what is in its environment than that big old B 52 had. So, at any rate, I am not diminishing the difficulty, because this has to be something we do nationally. On the other hand, I m very interested in trying to match up our needs and the ability of the FAA to act in a way that s responsible to meet our training needs, here. Because as we move toward greater use of Unmanned Aerial Systems, this is going to be a center of that a significant center. Homeland Security, Grand Forks Air Force Base, The Center for Earth and Space Science, and the UAV research this is going to be one of those centers, and I, you know, I m interested in the national issue, but I m especially interested in finding out that we re not stuck up here, trying to figure out, Well, now we have airplanes in boxes, we put them together, but no place to train them because we weren t able to figure out how hand-in-glove to work with the FAA to address an issue of a 35 by 45-mile airspace for some training. I think we ve learned some things this morning that will be helpful as we proceed, and I m going to push very hard in the coming months to get that report, make sure we understand what is possible at the FAA and you will submit to me timelines, I believe, with the Air Force based on what you ve just described on this particular issue, as well. Governor Hoeven had requested that General Sprynczynatyk read a letter. If you would be willing, General, to summarize that letter for us, I d be happy to have you read that into the record at this point. General SPRYNCZYNATYK. Good morning, Senator Dorgan, Congressman Pomeroy, it s a pleasure to be here today representing Governor Hoeven. The Governor has expressed his support for FAA s integration of military Unmanned Aerial Systems into the national airspace at Grand Forks Air Base. North Dakota serves as an ideal testing ground for a variety of UAS pilot projects. For example, the United States will need to determine how unmanned aviation can be conducted safely in national airspace. North Dakota would be an excellent location for pilot projects demonstrating that UAS operations and private and commercial aviation can co-exist in a safe and efficient manner. In addition, our airspace could provide opportunities for testing of small-scale commercial UAS operations, such as the use of UAS technology to aid the agricultural processes. In order to conduct these pilot projects, the current National Airspace infrastructure in North Dakota would have to be modified. One of the key factors behind the rapid growth of UAS programs in North Dakota, is the fact that our State possesses one of the Nation s premiere aerospace schools. The John D. Odegard School for Aerospace Sciences at the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks is home to the UAS Center for Education, Training and Research, which currently possesses 7 active COAs located in 5 locations for unmanned flight. This program produces well-trained graduates ready to operate unmanned aircraft, providing a labor source for UAS operations conducted within North Dakota. VerDate Nov 24 Unmanned :41 Aircraft Sep 23, 2011 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\68402.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE NCRSASL - 48

59 30 There are already a number of UAS Operations being conducted in North Dakota. For example, the Department of Homeland Security s Customs and Border Protection agency is flying the Predator B from Grand Forks, providing for homeland security along the Canadian border. The North Dakota Air National Guard, based out of Fargo, is currently conducting Predator flights in the Middle East, amassing over 50,000 flight hours with operators working out of an operations center located in Fargo. UAS operations will continue to expand in North Dakota if Grand Force Air Force Base is scheduled to receive a number of Global Hawks, which will be deployed overseas, as well. An authorized Launch and Recovery Element for the North Dakota Air National Guard at Grand Forks is scheduled for flight operations in Training missions for these operations will increase the demand for North Dakota airspace; therefore it is important to determine how airspace should be allocated in the future. Ensuring there is ample training space within North Dakota will be critical to the future success of these programs. I ask that the Subcommittee consider the opportunities for Unmanned Aerial Systems development in North Dakota, and find an appropriate way to integrate UAS into the National Airspace System. Senator DORGAN. General Sprynczynatyk, thank you very much, and thanks for your service, as well. Let me say to the witnesses, first of all, to my colleagues, Congressman Pomeroy, thanks for your continuing work on this issue. Gael Sullivan is the Staff Director for the Commerce Committee Aviation Subcommittee, Gael is back here, and Gael, thank you for the work that you do. And Gael will follow up continuously with this hearing. And Brian Moran, who works on these issues in my staff, is behind me and Jeff Carter, who works with Senator Conrad, is behind me, as well. I want to thank them for their work. And let me just make one final comment, if I might. First of all, I appreciate, very much the witnesses coming to Grand Forks, you ve travelled some distance to do this, but this is important. We care, very much, about making things happen rather than letting things happen. And, I don t mean to well, yes, I do I was going to say, I don t mean to be critical of bureaucracies, but the fact is the Defense Department is one of the biggest bureaucracies in the world, and the FAA, while smaller, is every bit its equal. [Laughter.] Senator DORGAN. And the reason I say that is, bureaucracies are often saddled by their own harnesses. And sometimes it s required to be able to strip through that and make decisions that are thoughtful decisions in a timeline that is reasonable. A year ago, early 2009, we held a meeting, here, in Grand Forks and the purpose of that meeting was to talk about what needed to be done and how to get it done, and that was February of And I think what we have seen between then and now, a year and a half and I m not suggesting nothing has been done, but I do think that we re setting ourselves up for a problem, unless between now and the time that we have the fleets of UAVs here, needing training capabilities, unless between now and then we re able to find a new gear and new cooperation between the FAA and the VerDate Nov 24 Unmanned :41 Aircraft Sep 23, 2011 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\68402.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE NCRSASL - 49

60 31 military, I think we will run into a problem. And a problem that should not exist, because we see it ahead of us, let s fix it before we get there. Mr. Krakowski, you and Mr. Allen are critical to this, along with your administrator, and Mr. Ahern, General Gibson, General Rice, you have a stake in this, as well. The fact is, Congressman Pomeroy and I have watched a lot of different Federal agencies work together. Sometimes they never even touch each other, let alone put their hands together and decide they re going to do something and accomplish something by the time needed. But, both the Defense Department and the FAA have the capability to make this work. And I hope today s hearing establishes the urgency with which this gets done. So, I want to thank all of you for being here, and thank my colleague, Congressman Pomeroy. This hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 9:30 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] VerDate Nov 24 Unmanned :41 Aircraft Sep 23, 2011 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\68402.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE NCRSASL - 50

61 VerDate Nov 24 Unmanned :41 Aircraft Sep 23, 2011 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\68402.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE NCRSASL - 51

62 A P P E N D I X STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR September 13, 2010 Comments from Governor John Hoeven to the Senate Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety and Security hearing on The Integration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) into the National Airspace System (NAS): Fulfilling Imminent Operational and Training Requirements. I am writing to express my support for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) integration of military Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) into the National Airspace System (NAS) at the Grand Forks Air Force Base. This plan would allow UAS access to training areas and Class A airspace by modifying airspace design and flight rules, while implementing upgraded Air Traffic Control (ATC) radar to monitor and direct UAS traffic. These changes are necessary to satisfy the operational and training needs of the Global Hawk and Predator UASs that are scheduled to be based at Grand Forks Air Force Base. I hope that this hearing will help clarify the status of the plan to integrate UASs into the National Airspace, identify issues that arc delaying implementation of the plan, and detail any additional changes to airspace design and flight rules that are being considered. North Dakota has the potential to serve as an ideal testing ground for a variety of UAS pilot projects. For example, the United States will need to determine how unmanned aviation can be incorporated safely into the national airspace. North Dakota would be an excellent location for pilot projects demonstrating that UAS operations and private and commercial aviation can co-exist in a safe and efficient manner. In addition, our airspace could provide opportunities for testing of small scale commercial UAS operations, such as the use of UAS technology to aid the agricultural process. In order to conduct these pilot projects, the current National Airspace System infrastructure in North Dakota would have to be modified. One of the key factors behind the rapid growth of UAS programs in North Dakota is the fact that our state possesses one of the Nation s premiere aerospace schools. The John D. Odegard School for Aerospace Sciences at the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks is home to the UAS Center for Education Training and Research, which possesses 7 active Certificates of Authorization located in 5 locations for unmanned flight. This program produces well-trained graduates ready to operate unmanned aircraft, providing a labor source for UAS operations conducted within North Dakota. There arc already a number of UAS operations being conducted in North Dakota. For example, the Department of Homeland Security s Customs and Border Protection agency is flying the Predator B from Grand Forks Air Force Base to provide for homeland security along the Canadian border. The North Dakota Air National Guard, based out of Fargo, is currently conducting Predator A flights in the Middle East, amassing over 50,000 flight hours with operators working out of an operations center located in Fargo. UAS operations will only continue to expand within North Dakota. The Grand Forks Air Force Base is scheduled to receive a number of Global Hawks, which will be deployed overseas as well. An authorized Launch and Recovery Element for the North Dakota Air National Guard at Grand Forks is scheduled for flight operations in Training missions for these operations will increase the demand for North Dakota airspace; therefore it is important to determine how airspace should be allocated in the future. Ensuring there is ample training space within North Dakota will be critical to the future success of these programs. I ask that the Subcommittee consider the opportunities for UAS development in North Dakota, and find an appropriate way to integrate UASs into the National Airspace System. Submitted: JOHN HOEVEN, Governor. (33) VerDate Nov 24 Unmanned :41 Aircraft Sep 23, 2011 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\68402.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE NCRSASL - 52

63 34 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN ENSIGN TO HANK KRAKOWSKI Question 1. We know that some of the large mirror complexes can cause a great deal of glare and may have an effect on flash blinding pilots. What would that do to a Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) using camera and sensor packages? What impact would large concentrated solar towers have on the cameras and sensor packages of RPAs? Answer. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Unmanned Aircraft Systems Group has not received any reports of flashblinding occurring. Discussions with proponents of these complexes indicate that flash could briefly render the camera portion of the aircraft sensor unusable. Other sensor packages, such as infrared, may or may not be affected, depending upon the type of sensor at issue. Currently, the FAA is not authorizing the use of any onboard sensors as a means to meet the Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part As such, any flashblinding would most likely have minimal impact on National Airspace System (NAS) operational safety requirements. Question 2. Has the FAA conducted any detailed studies on how wind farms, solar arrays, or concentrated solar towers would impact RPAs or manned military aircraft operating both during the day and at night? Answer. The FAA has not conducted any studies of how wind farms, solar arrays or concentrated solar towers would impact RPAs or manned military aircraft operating during the day or night. Question 3. Has the FAA conducted studies the impact of wind farms on the ability of air traffic control radars to track RPAs and manned aircraft entering and exiting military training airspace? Answer. The FAA has not conducted any specific studies addressing the impact of wind farms on the ability of radar to track unmanned aircraft entering or exiting military training airspace. The FAA primary long range radars can not presently distinguish between the blade flash of the wind turbine and actual aircraft in the same azimuth and range. The moving target indicator processing of the radar is used to determine stationary objects from those in motion, which are passed on for further processing. The blade flash of the turbine, in motion, is identified the same as an aircraft in motion and passed through the radar system for additional processing. The FAA is working with the U.S. Air Force to investigate mitigation options to alleviate the impacts of the wind turbines on radar. We have optimized radar sites using the existing capabilities to acquire the best performance with the processing constraints currently available. We are investigating the possibility of introducing auxiliary processing that may be able to improve the radar performance in the wind turbine impacted areas. We are also jointly researching other types of radar systems than those presently in use for FAA aircraft target detection to determine if the technology currently exists for properly dealing with the impacts to radar from the wind turbine farms. Question 4. When approving large scale solar towers does the FAA consider airspace safety in its approval process? Answer. Yes, airspace safety is considered in the FAA approval processes. Question 5. When approving large scale solar towers does the FAA consider lasers emanating from them that could impact airspace safety? Answer. No, aeronautical studies conducted under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 77 evaluate the impact of the structure, but do not include for study of anything that may emanate from the structure such as glare, glint, or gasses. Question 6. When approving large scale solar towers does the FAA consider glare emanating from the towers that could impact pilot safety? Answer. No, aeronautical studies conducted under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 77 evaluate the impact of the structure, but do not include for study of anything that may emanate from the structure such as glare, glint, or gasses. Current FAA guidance does not address concentrated solar power (CSP) installations that use large reflective surfaces in massive arrays to focus the sun s energy on a trough or tower collection/generation system. Pending guidance is limited to non-reflective PV solar technology applied on a relatively small scale at airports. There is inadequate science on reflectivity and it will therefore take some time to establish a basis or standard for evaluating concentrated solar power facilities and their potential glint and glare effects on pilots. Question 7. If the FAA does consider factors that could blind a pilot (civilian or military) such as lasers, shouldn t it hold that the FAA should consider other factors that could blind a pilot or white out an RPA sensor package such as glare? VerDate Nov 24 Unmanned :41 Aircraft Sep 23, 2011 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\68402.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE NCRSASL - 53

64 35 Answer. Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 77 does not include for study of anything that may emanate from the structure such as glare. While the FAA does not have any standards to study glare, the agency is currently forming a team to study the effects of reflectivity on pilots. Question 8. Shouldn t the FAA consider glare with the same rigor it does lasers, as both are a version of light amplification and both could blind a pilot? Answer. Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 77 does not include for study of anything that may emanate from the structure such as glare. While the FAA does not have any standards to study glare, the agency is currently forming a team to study the effects of reflectivity on pilots. Æ VerDate Nov 24 Unmanned :41 Aircraft Sep 23, 2011 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6611 S:\GPO\DOCS\68402.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE NCRSASL - 54

65 I 112TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION H. R To protect individual privacy against unwarranted governmental intrusion through the use of the unmanned aerial vehicles commonly called drones, and for other purposes. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES JUNE 7, 2012 Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS A BILL To protect individual privacy against unwarranted governmental intrusion through the use of the unmanned aerial vehicles commonly called drones, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of SEC. 2. PROHIBITED USE OF DRONES. Except as provided in section 3, a person or entity acting under the authority of the United States shall not use a drone to gather evidence or other information per- VerDate Mar 15 Unmanned :09 Aircraft Jun 12, 2012 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5925.IH H5925 NCRSASL - 55

66 taining to criminal conduct or conduct in violation of a regulation except to the extent authorized in a warrant issued under the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. SEC. 3. EXCEPTIONS. This Act does not prohibit any of the following: (1) PATROL OF BORDERS. The use of a drone to patrol national borders to prevent or deter illegal entry of any immigrants or illegal substances. (2) EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES. The use of a drone by a law enforcement party when exigent circumstances exist. For the purposes of this paragraph, exigent circumstances exist when the law enforcement party possesses reasonable suspicion that under particular circumstances, swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. (3) HIGH RISK. The use of a drone to counter a high risk of a terrorist attack by a specific individual or organization, when the Secretary of Homeland Security determines credible intelligence indicates there is such a risk. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS HR 5925 IH VerDate Mar 15 Unmanned :09 Aircraft Jun 12, 2012 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5925.IH H5925 NCRSASL - 56

67 SEC. 4. REMEDIES FOR VIOLATION. Any aggrieved party may in a civil action obtain all appropriate relief to prevent or remedy a violation of this Act. SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS. In this Act: (1) The term drone means any powered, aerial vehicle that does not carry a human operator, uses aerodynamic forces to provide vehicle lift, can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely, can be expendable or recoverable, and can carry a lethal or nonlethal payload. (2) The term law enforcement party means a person or entity authorized by law to investigate or prosecute offenses against the United States. Æ tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS HR 5925 IH VerDate Mar 15 Unmanned :09 Aircraft Jun 12, 2012 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6301 E:\BILLS\H5925.IH H5925 NCRSASL - 57

68 II 112TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION S To protect individual privacy against unwarranted governmental intrusion through the use of the unmanned aerial vehicles commonly called drones, and for other purposes. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES JUNE 12, 2012 Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS A BILL To protect individual privacy against unwarranted governmental intrusion through the use of the unmanned aerial vehicles commonly called drones, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. In this Act (1) the term drone means any powered, aer- ial vehicle that VerDate Mar 15 Unmanned :47 Aircraft Jun 13, 2012 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3287.IS S3287 NCRSASL - 58

69 (A) does not carry a human operator; (B) uses aerodynamic forces to provide vehicle lift; (C) can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely; (D) can be expendable or recoverable; and (E) can carry a lethal or nonlethal payload; and (2) the term law enforcement party means a person or entity authorized by law, or funded by the Government of the United States, to investigate or prosecute offenses against the United States. SEC. 3. PROHIBITED USE OF DRONES. Except as provided in section 4, a person or entity acting under the authority, or funded in whole or in part by, the Government of the United States shall not use a drone to gather evidence or other information pertaining to criminal conduct or conduct in violation of a statute or regulation except to the extent authorized in a warrant that satisfies the requirements of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. SEC. 4. EXCEPTIONS. This Act does not prohibit any of the following: tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS S 3287 IS VerDate Mar 15 Unmanned :47 Aircraft Jun 13, 2012 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3287.IS S3287 NCRSASL - 59

70 tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS 3 1 (1) PATROL OF BORDERS. The use of a drone 2 to patrol national borders to prevent or deter illegal 3 entry of any persons or illegal substances. 4 (2) EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES. The use of a 5 drone by a law enforcement party when exigent cir- 6 cumstances exist. For the purposes of this para- 7 graph, exigent circumstances exist when the law en- 8 forcement party possesses reasonable suspicion that 9 under particular circumstances, swift action to pre- 10 vent imminent danger to life is necessary. 11 (3) HIGH RISK. The use of a drone to counter 12 a high risk of a terrorist attack by a specific indi- 13 vidual or organization, when the Secretary of Home- 14 land Security determines credible intelligence indi- 15 cates there is such a risk SEC. 5. REMEDIES FOR VIOLATION. Any aggrieved party may in a civil action obtain all appropriate relief to prevent or remedy a violation of this Act. SEC. 6. PROHIBITION ON USE OF EVIDENCE. No evidence obtained or collected in violation of this Act may be admissible as evidence in a criminal prosecution in any court of law in the United States. Æ S 3287 IS VerDate Mar 15 Unmanned :47 Aircraft Jun 13, 2012 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6301 E:\BILLS\S3287.IS S3287 NCRSASL - 60

71 I 112TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION H. R To amend the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 to establish prohibitions to prevent the use of unmanned aircraft systems as weapons while operating in the national airspace system, and for other purposes. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES JUNE 15, 2012 Mr. BURGESS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure A BILL To amend the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 to establish prohibitions to prevent the use of unmanned aircraft systems as weapons while operating in the national airspace system, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the No Armed Drones Act of 2012 or the NADA Act of srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS VerDate Mar 15 Unmanned :44 Aircraft Jun 15, 2012 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5950.IH H5950 NCRSASL - 61

72 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS SEC. 2. UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS. 2 (a) IN GENERAL. Subtitle B of title III of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (126 Stat. 72 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: SEC PROHIBITIONS TO PREVENT USE OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS AS WEAPONS WHILE OP- ERATING IN NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM. (a) PROHIBITIONS. The Secretary of Transportation may not authorize a person (1) to operate an unmanned aircraft system in the national airspace system for the purpose, in whole or in part, of using the unmanned aircraft system as a weapon or to deliver a weapon against a person or property; or (2) to manufacture, sell, or distribute an unmanned aircraft system, or a component thereof, for use in the national airspace system as a weapon or to deliver a weapon against a person or property. (b) DEFINITIONS. In this section, the following definitions apply: (1) PERSON. The term person has the meaning given that term in section 40102(a) of title 49, United States Code. (2) WEAPON. The term weapon includes lethal and nonlethal weapons.. HR 5950 IH VerDate Mar 15 Unmanned :44 Aircraft Jun 15, 2012 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5950.IH H5950 NCRSASL - 62

73 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT. The table of contents contained in section 1(b) of such Act is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 336 the following: Sec Prohibitions to prevent use of unmanned aircraft systems as weapons while operating in national airspace system.. Æ srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS HR 5950 IH VerDate Mar 15 Unmanned :44 Aircraft Jun 15, 2012 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6301 E:\BILLS\H5950.IH H5950 NCRSASL - 63

74 I 112TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION H. R To provide for limitations on the domestic use of drones in investigating regulatory and criminal offenses, and for other purposes. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES JULY 25, 2012 Mr. POE of Texas (for himself, Mr. GARRETT, Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan, Mr. PITTS, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. RIBBLE, Mr. RIGELL, Mrs. LUMMIS, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. CULBERSON, Mr. DESJARLAIS, Mr. WALBERG, Mr. STUTZMAN, Mr. GRAVES of Georgia, Mr. MULVANEY, Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mr. GOWDY, Mr. JOR- DAN, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. ROSS of Florida, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. SOUTHERLAND, and Mr. CAMPBELL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS A BILL To provide for limitations on the domestic use of drones in investigating regulatory and criminal offenses, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the Preserving American Privacy Act of VerDate Mar 15 Unmanned :18 Aircraft Jul 28, 2012 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H6199.IH H6199 NCRSASL - 64

75 jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON AUTHORIZATION OF DOMESTIC USE OF DRONES EXCEPT FOR CERTAIN LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES. No Federal agency may authorize the domestic use of an unmanned aircraft (as defined in section 331 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (49 U.S.C note)) for law enforcement purposes or for surveillance of a United States national or real property owned by that national, including by any State or local government, except pursuant to warrant and in the investigation of a felony. The domestic use of such an unmanned aircraft shall be subject to the same limitations and exceptions as apply in the case of any other search in the relevant jurisdiction. SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON DOMESTIC USE OF DRONES IN FED- ERAL CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS. Chapter 205 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: Limitation on domestic use of drones No Federal agency other than a Federal law enforcement agency may use in the United States or authorize any Federal officer or employee to use in the United States (including by granting a permit to use) an unmanned aircraft (as defined in section 331 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (49 U.S.C note)) for law enforcement purposes or for surveillance of HR 6199 IH VerDate Mar 15 Unmanned :18 Aircraft Jul 28, 2012 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H6199.IH H6199 NCRSASL - 65

76 jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS 3 1 a United States national or real property owned by that 2 national except pursuant to warrant and in the investiga- 3 tion of a felony. The domestic use of such an unmanned 4 aircraft shall be subject to the same limitations and excep- 5 tions as apply in the case of any other search. No informa- 6 tion obtained in violation of this section using such an un- 7 manned aircraft may be used in a criminal proceeding be- 8 fore a Federal court SEC. 4. NO USE OF DRONE EVIDENCE IN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS. Section 556 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: (f) No evidence obtained by an agency using an unmanned aircraft (as defined in section 331 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (49 U.S.C note)) may be introduced in a hearing under this section.. SEC. 5. NO AUTHORIZATION FOR DOMESTIC USE IN PRI- VATE SURVEILLANCE. No Federal agency may authorize the domestic use, including granting a permit to use, of an unmanned aircraft (as defined in section 331 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (49 U.S.C note)), to permit any private person to conduct surveillance on any other private person without the consent of that other pri- HR 6199 IH VerDate Mar 15 Unmanned :18 Aircraft Jul 28, 2012 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H6199.IH H6199 NCRSASL - 66

77 vate person or the owner of any real property on which that other private person is present. SEC. 6. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to change the laws regarding the permissible uses of drones for border security applications within 25 miles of the United States border. Æ jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS HR 6199 IH VerDate Mar 15 Unmanned :18 Aircraft Jul 28, 2012 Systems Jkt in U.S. PO Frm Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6301 E:\BILLS\H6199.IH H6199 NCRSASL - 67

78 AC ADVISORY DATE June 9, 1981 CIRCULAR DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Washington, D.C. Subject: MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATING STANDARDS 1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular outlines, and encourages voluntary compliance with, safety standards for model aircraft operators. L 2. BACKGROUND. Modelers, generally, are concerned about safety and do exercise good judgement when flying model aircraft. However, model.aircraft can at times pose a hazard to full-scale aircraft in flight and to personsand property on the surface. Compliance with the following standards will help reduce the potential for that hazard and create a good neighbor environment with affected communities and airspace users. 3 0 OPERATING STANDARDS. a. Select an operating site that is of sufficient distance from populated areas. The selected site should be away from noise sensitive areas such as parks, schools, hospitals, churches, etc. b. Do not operate model aircraft in the presence of spectators until the aircraft is successfully flight tested and proven airworthy. CO Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface. When flying aircraft within 3 miles of an airport, notify the airport operator, or when an air traffic facility is located at the airport, notify the control tower, or flight service station. d. Give right of way to, and avoid flying in the proximity of, full-scale aircraft. Use observers to help if possible. e r 0 Do not hesitate to ask f or assistance from any airport traffic control concerning compliance with these standards. v 4 R. J. VANVUREN Direc tor, Air Traffic Service Initiated by: AAT- NCRSASL - 68

79 Federal Aviation Administration Memorandum Date: November 15, 2006 From: Manager, Aircraft Engineering Division, AIR-100 ~~ Manager, Production and Airworthiness Division, AfR-20o//P To: SEE DISTRIBUTION Prepared by: James Sizemore, AIR-160, (202) or Richard Posey, AIR-230, (202) or Subject: Unmanned Aircraft Systems (VAS) Certification Status This memorandum provides an update on the status of the efforts within AVS to allow Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) to operate in the National Airspace System (NAS). In 2005, AIR-200 took the first step and began accepting applications for Special Airworthiness Certificates in the Experimental category for UAS. This activity is based on one ofthe strategies identified in the Administrator's Flight Plan for, "implementing technologies and systems that will help pilots operate aircraft as safely as possible." AIR-200 issued memorandums on June 17,2005 and July 11, 2005 announcing this activity and AVS has subsequently issued 4 Experimental Certificates since August The decision to manage UAS activity from FAA Headquarters is to gain experience with applicants that will allow us to develop policy and procedures for Aviation Safety Inspectors (ASI) and potentially for designees. AIR-200 has developed a draft order that describes the process for issuing Experimental Certificates to UAS and will prototype its use in FY All requests for an Experimental Certificate are processes by a team established within Headquarters composed of subject matter experts from AIR-100, AIR-200, AFS-400 and the Air Traffic Organization. Applicants are required to meet criteria established in a UAS unique Program Letter and Safety Checklist. AIR-200 works directly with the Manufacturing Inspection Offices, Manufacturing Inspection District/Satellite Office, or Certificate Management OfficeslUnits and Flight Standards District Offices to develop and finalize operating limitations, and issue Experimental Certificates. Program Letters or applications received by field offices should be referred to AIR-200. The Unmanned Aircraft Program Office, AIR-160, was established in February 2006, and is the focal point for all AVS UAS activity, including any proposed certification projects that may be presented to ACO's. As such, all proposed UAS type certification projects must be worked within the appropriate Directorate, as well as coordinated with AIR NCRSASL - 69

80 There has been vigorous activity in industry exploring the endless possibilities that VAS bring to aviation. There are many new and novel issues to be addressed as VAS are considered for integration into the NAS. As these issues are unique to VAS and may differ substanially from manned aircraft operations and systems, they will require consideration and special attention while this area of aviation matures. At a minimum, the certification and introduction of these systems must not degrade the current level of safety within the NAS. AIR-100 recently requested a point of contact (POC) from each Directorate to be the focal point to assist in the development of VAS specific policies, procedures, and potential regulations. These representatives will serve as the principle member for each directorate, to include associated field activities, in the development of necessary resources and milestones needed to accomplish programmatic tasks. These projects are significant, and early program coordination between the ACO Engineer and the Directorate P~C is essential. As soon as practical after the project application, the ACO Engineer must notify and promptly forward the certification project notifications and associated certification plans to the Directorate POC. The Directorate POCs are responsible for ensuring coordination ofthese projects with AIR-160. In addition, as members of the Headquarters Team, it is anticipated that the Directorate POCs will participate in safety reviews with applicants for Experimental Certificates. The list of the Directorate POC's are as follows: Transport Airplane Directorate: Steve Edgar, (425) , steve.edgar@faa.gov Small Airplane Directorate: Gunnar Berg and Greg Davison, (816) , gunnar.berg@faa.gov (816) , gregorv.davison@faa.gov Rotorcraft Directorate: Chinh Vuong, (817) , chinh.vuong({v,faa.gov Engine and Propellor Directorate: Jeorge Fernandez, (781) , ieorge.fernandez@faa.gov The AIR HeadQuartersPOC's are as follows: AIR-I 10 Victor Powell, Lead VAS Policy (202) , victor.powell@faa.gov AIR-160 James Sizemore, Team Lead, VAS Airworthiness and Systems Engineering (202) , iames.sizemore@faa.gov AIR-200 Richard Posey, Lead VAS Experimental Certification Policy (202) , richard.posey@faa.gov 2 NCRSASL - 70

81 Thank you for your cooperation and support as we continue in this exciting new regulatory challenge in civil aviation. If there are any questions, please contact James Sizemore, AIR-l 60, and Richard Posey, AIR-230. Distribution: Director, Aircraft Certification Service Director, Flight Standards Service Manager, Brussels Aircraft Certification Staff, AEU-IOO All Aircraft Certification Directorate Managers All Aircraft Certification Offices All Manufacturing Inspection Offices All Manufacturing Inspection District/Satellite Offices All Certificate Management Offices/Units All Flight Standards/Certificate Holding Distict Offices Manager, Aircraft Maintenance Division, AFS-300 Manager, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, AFS-400 Manager, General Aviation and Commercial Division, AFS NCRSASL - 71

82 [ ] DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 91 Docket No. FAA Unmanned Aircraft Operations in the National Airspace System AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of policy; opportunity for feedback. SUMMARY: This notice clarifies the FAA s current policy concerning operations of unmanned aircraft in the National Airspace System. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth D. Davis, Manager, Unmanned Aircraft Program Office, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, (202) , kenneth.d.davis@faa.gov. Background Simply stated, an unmanned aircraft is a device that is used, or is intended to be used, for flight in the air with no onboard pilot. These devices may be as simple as a remotely controlled model aircraft used for recreational purposes or as complex as surveillance aircraft flying over hostile areas in warfare. They may be controlled either manually or through an autopilot using a data link to connect the pilot to their aircraft. They may perform a variety of public services: surveillance, collection of air samples to determine levels of pollution, or rescue and recovery missions in crisis situations. They range in size from wingspans of six inches to 246 feet; and can weigh from approximately four ounces to NCRSASL - 72

83 over 25,600 pounds. The one thing they have in common is that their numbers and uses are growing dramatically. In the United States alone, approximately 50 companies, universities, and government organizations are developing and producing some 155 unmanned aircraft designs. Regulatory standards need to be developed to enable current technology for unmanned aircraft to comply with Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The Federal Aviation Administration s current policy is based on whether the unmanned aircraft is used as a public aircraft, civil aircraft or as a model aircraft. Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operating as Public Aircraft The most common public use of unmanned aircraft today in the United States is by the Department of Defense. U.S. operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere have fueled a huge increase in unmanned aircraft demand. In Iraq alone, more than 700 unmanned aircraft are in use for surveillance and weapons delivery. Other agencies have also found public uses for unmanned aircraft. For example, the Customs and Border Protection uses them to patrol along the US/Mexican border. In the future, unmanned aircraft could be used to provide first responder reports of damage due to weather or other catastrophic causes. In response to this growing demand for public use unmanned aircraft operations, the FAA developed guidance in a Memorandum titled Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operations in the U.S. National Airspace System Interim Operational Approval Guidance (UAS Policy 05-01). In this document, the FAA set out guidance for public use of unmanned aircraft by defining a process for evaluating applications for Certificate(s) of Waiver or Authorization (COA s) for unmanned aircraft to operate in the National Airspace System. The concern was not only that unmanned aircraft operations might interfere with 2 NCRSASL - 73

84 commercial and general aviation aircraft operations, but that they could also pose a safety problem for other airborne vehicles, and persons or property on the ground. The FAA guidance supports unmanned aircraft flight activity that can be conducted at an acceptable level of safety. In order to ensure this level of safety, the operator is required to establish the Unmanned Aircraft System s (UAS) airworthiness either from FAA certification, a DOD airworthiness statement, or by other approved means. Applicants also have to demonstrate that a collision with another aircraft or other airspace user is extremely improbable as well as complying with appropriate cloud and terrain clearances as required. Key to the concept are the roles of pilot-in-command (PIC) and observer. The PIC concept is essential to the safe operation of manned aircraft. The FAA s UAS guidance applies this PIC concept to unmanned aircraft and includes minimum qualifications and currency requirements. The PIC is simply the person in control of, and responsible for, the UAS. The role of the observer is to observe the activity of the unmanned aircraft and surrounding airspace, either through line-of-sight on the ground or in the air by means of a chase aircraft. In general, this means the pilot or observer must be, in most cases, within 1 mile laterally and 3,000 feet vertically of the unmanned aircraft. Direct communication between the PIC and the observer must be maintained at all times. Unmanned aircraft flight above 18,000 feet must be conducted under Instrument Flight Rules, on an IFR flight plan, must obtain ATC clearance, be equipped with at least a Mode C transponder (preferably Mode S), operating navigation lights and / or collision avoidance lights and maintain communication between the PIC and Air Traffic Control (ATC). Unmanned aircraft flights below 18,000 feet have similar requirements, except that if operators choose to operate on other than an IFR flight plan, they may be required to pre-coordinate with ATC. 3 NCRSASL - 74

85 The FAA has issued more than 50 COA s over the past 2 years and anticipates issuing a record number of COA s this year. For more information, Memorandum on UAS Policy (05-01) and other policy guidance is available at the FAA Website: Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operating as Civil Aircraft Just as unmanned aircraft have a variety of uses in the public sector, their application in commercial or civil use is equally diverse. This is a quickly growing and important industry. Under FAA policy, operators who wish to fly an unmanned aircraft for civil use must obtain an FAA airworthiness certificate the same as any other type aircraft. The FAA is currently only issuing special airworthiness certificates in the experimental category. Experimental certificates are issued with accompanying operational limitations (14 CFR ) that are appropriate to the applicant s operation. The FAA has issued five experimental certificates for unmanned aircraft systems for the purposes of research and development, marketing surveys, or crew training. UAS issued experimental certificates may not be used for compensation or hire. The applicable regulations for an experimental certificate are found in 14 CFR , , and In general, the applicant must state the intended use for the UAS and provide sufficient information to satisfy the FAA that the aircraft can be operated safely. The time or number of flights must be specified along with a description of the areas over which the aircraft would operate. The application must also include drawings or detailed photographs of the aircraft. An on-site review of the system and demonstration of the area of operation may be required. Additional information on how to apply for an 4 NCRSASL - 75

86 experimental airworthiness certificate is available from Richard Posey, AIR-200, (202) ; Recreational/Sport Use of Model Airplanes In 1981, in recognition of the safety issues raised by the operation of model aircraft, the FAA published Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57, Model Aircraft Operating Standards for the purpose of providing guidance to persons interested in flying model aircraft as a hobby or for recreational use. This guidance encourages good judgment on the part of operators so that persons on the ground or other aircraft in flight will not be endangered. The AC contains among other things, guidance for site selection. Users are advised to avoid noise sensitive areas such as parks, schools, hospitals, and churches. Hobbyists are advised not to fly in the vicinity of spectators until they are confident that the model aircraft has been flight tested and proven airworthy. Model aircraft should be flown below 400 feet above the surface to avoid other aircraft in flight. The FAA expects that hobbyists will operate these recreational model aircraft within visual line-of-sight. While the AC was developed for model aircraft, some operators have used the AC as the basis for commercial flight operations. Policy Statement The current FAA policy for UAS operations is that no person may operate a UAS in the National Airspace System without specific authority. For UAS operating as public aircraft the authority is the COA, for UAS operating as civil aircraft the authority is special airworthiness certificates, and for model aircraft the authority is AC The FAA recognizes that people and companies other than modelers might be flying UAS with the mistaken understanding that they are legally operating under the authority of 5 NCRSASL - 76

87 AC AC only applies to modelers, and thus specifically excludes its use by persons or companies for business purposes. The FAA has undertaken a safety review that will examine the feasibility of creating a different category of unmanned vehicles that may be defined by the operator s visual line of sight and are also small and slow enough to adequately mitigate hazards to other aircraft and persons on the ground. The end product of this analysis may be a new flight authorization instrument similar to AC 91-57, but focused on operations which do not qualify as sport and recreation, but also may not require a certificate of airworthiness. They will, however, require compliance with applicable FAA regulations and guidance developed for this category. Feedback regarding current FAA policy for Unmanned Aircraft Systems can be submitted at (Scroll down to the bottom of the page and find Contact UAPO. Click into this link.) Issued in Washington, DC on February 6, 2007 /s/ Nick Sabatini Nicholas Sabatini Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety 6 NCRSASL - 77

88 NCRSASL - 78

89 NCRSASL - 79

90 NCRSASL - 80

91 NCRSASL - 81

92 AVIATION SAFETY UNMANNED AIRCRAFT PROGRAM OFFICE AIR-160 Interim Operational Approval Guidance Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operations in the U. S. National Airspace System March 13, 2008 NCRSASL - 82

93 Purpose Aviation Safety Unmanned Aircraft Program Office (UAPO) Interim Operational Approval Guidance, Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operations in the U. S. National Airspace System, provides guidance to be used to determine if unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) may be allowed to conduct flight operations in the U. S. national airspace system (NAS). UAPO and Air Traffic Organization (ATO) personnel will use this policy guidance when evaluating each application for a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) and special airworthiness certificates (normally issued in an experimental category). UAPO Interim Operational Approval Guidance provides additional information on a number of items in the COA processor application developed by the Air Traffic Organization. Used in conjunction with the COA online application system, this guidance will simplify the COA evaluation process. 1.0 Introduction The proliferation of UAS into the NAS has resulted in an increased demand for the FAA to process a large number of applications to review for operational approvals. These approvals are required due to the fact that unmanned aircraft (UA) are not compliant with various sections of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) and therefore, require an alternate means of compliance. Most notably, the lack of an on-board pilot requires an alternate method of the see-and-avoid provisions of 14 CFR , Right-of-Way Rules: Except Water Operations. This document is intended to provide guidance and information to Aviation Safety (AVS) and ATO personnel who are charged with the processing, reviewing, and approving of UAS operations. The interim guidance presented in this document represents the culmination of best practices and procedures used in prior UAS approvals, as well as input from other government agencies, industry and user stakeholders. It should be noted that the material presented in this document is a recommended approach to approving typical UAS operations, however, each application needs to be assessed on its own technical merits and may require unique authorizations which are based on the specific needs or capabilities of the UAS in question. It should be further noted that due to the rapid evolution of UAS technology, this guidance material will be subject to continuous review and may be updated when appropriate. Note: In general, and as a minimum, applicants must observe all applicable regulations of 14 CFR parts 61 and 91. This document is intended to identify alternate methods of compliance with the regulations when evaluating proposed UAS operations. For a complete listing of regulations, refer to the following website: Background UAS operations have increased dramatically during the past several years in both the public and private sectors. In response to this increasing activity, it has become necessary to develop guidance for Federal Aviation Administration to use when evaluating applications for certificate(s) of waiver or authorization and special airworthiness certificates. This guidance is UAS Interim Operational Approval Guidance NCRSASL - 83

94 not meant as a substitute for any regulatory process. This guidance was jointly developed by, and reflects the consensus opinion of: The Unmanned Aircraft Program Office (UAPO), FAA Aircraft Certification Service (AIR-160) The Production and Airworthiness Division, FAA Aircraft Certification Service (AIR-200) The Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, FAA Flight Standards Service (AFS-400) The FAA Air Traffic Organization s Office of System Operations and Safety, (AJR-3). 3.0 Definitions The following definitions apply to terms used in this document. Airworthiness: For the UAS to be considered airworthy, both the aircraft and all of the other associated support equipment of the UAS must be in a condition for safe operation. If any element of the systems is not in condition for safe operation, then the UA would not be considered airworthy. Chase aircraft: A manned aircraft flying in close proximity to an unmanned aircraft that carries, in addition to the pilot in command (PIC) of the aircraft, a qualified visual observer. Cooperative aircraft: Aircraft that have an electronic means of identification (i.e., a transponder) aboard and operating. Inspection: The routine performance of inspection tasks at prescribed intervals. The inspection must ensure the airworthiness of an aircraft up to and including its overhaul or life limits. Non-Cooperative aircraft: Aircraft that do not have an electronic means of identification (i.e., a transponder) aboard or not operating such equipment due to malfunction or deliberate action. Off-Airport: Any location used to launch or recover an unmanned aircraft that is not considered an airport (i.e., an open field). Pilot in Command (PIC): The person who has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of flight, has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight, and holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating, if appropriate, for the conduct of the flight. The responsibility and authority of the pilot in command as described by 14 CFR 91.3, Responsibility and Authority of the Pilot in Command, apply to the unmanned aircraft PIC. The pilot in command position may rotate duties as necessary with equally qualified pilots. The individual designated as PIC may change during flight. Public aircraft: An aircraft operated by a public user which is intrinsically governmental in nature (i.e. federal, state, and local agencies). Examples of public entities are Department of Defense (DoD) and its military branches; other local, state, and federal government agencies; and state universities. Refer to 14 CFR 1.1, General Definitions, for a complete definition of a public aircraft. UAS Interim Operational Approval Guidance NCRSASL - 84

95 Scheduled Maintenance (Routine): The performance of maintenance tasks at prescribed intervals. Supplemental Pilot: Supplemental pilots are those pilots assigned unmanned aircraft flight duties to augment the pilot in command. It is common for applicants to have both an internal and an external unmanned aircraft pilot. The supplemental pilot can assume either of these positions. The supplemental pilot may also assume duties of the pilot in command if they meet the qualifications. Unmanned Aircraft: A device used or intended to be used for flight in the air that has no onboard pilot. This includes all classes of airplanes, helicopters, airships, and translational lift aircraft that have no onboard pilot. Unmanned aircraft are understood to include only those aircraft controllable in three axes and therefore, exclude traditional balloons Unscheduled Maintenance (Non-Routine): The performance of maintenance tasks when mechanical irregularities occur. These irregularities are categorized as to whether or not they occur during flight time. Visual Line-of-Sight: A method of control and collision avoidance that refers to the pilot or observer directly viewing the unmanned aircraft with human eyesight. Corrective lenses (spectacles or contact lenses) may be used by the pilot or visual observer. Aids to vision, such as binoculars, field glasses, or telephoto television may be employed as long as their field of view does not adversely affect the surveillance task. Visual Observer: A trained person who assists the unmanned aircraft pilot in the duties associated with collision avoidance. This includes, but is not limited to, avoidance of other traffic, clouds, obstructions and terrain. 4.0 Methods of Authorization and Applicability Guidance in this document of an operational nature always applies to both civil and public operators. In the areas of pilot certification, crew certification, pilot currency, medical certificates, and airworthiness, it is assumed that all public aircraft comply with processes and policies established by the public entity, in a manner similar to publicly operated manned aircraft. If no established policies exist regarding pilot certification, crew certification, pilot currency, medical certificates, and airworthiness, it is highly recommended that the public agency/department apply the guidance outlined in this document. The procedures contained in this document are applicable for operations in the contiguous United States, Alaska, Hawaii, and the Flight Information Regions delegated to the United States and areas where the FAA is the Air Traffic Service Provider. In general, specific authorization to conduct unmanned aircraft operations in the NAS outside of active Restricted, Prohibited, or Warning Area airspace must be requested by the applicant. Airspace inside buildings or structures is not considered to be part of the NAS and is not regulated. The two methods of approval are either a certificate of waiver or authorization (COA) or the issuance of a special airworthiness certificate. UAS Interim Operational Approval Guidance NCRSASL - 85

96 The guidance information presented in this document applies to approvals for both COA and special airworthiness certificates. Unless otherwise stated, recommended procedures and guidance that appear in this document apply to both. The applicability and process to be used in a UAS operational approval is dependent on whether the applicant is a civil user or a public user. A public user is one that is intrinsically governmental in nature (i.e., federal, state, and local agencies). Public applicants should utilize the COA application process. Civil applicants must apply for an airworthiness certificate. Regardless of authorization method, all UAS applications are ultimately processed through ATO, UAPO, Flight Standards, and Aircraft Certification staff at the headquarters level for final approval and disposition. Notes: This document and the processes prescribed do not apply to hobbyists and amateur model aircraft users when operating systems for sport and recreation. Those individuals should seek guidance under Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57, Model Aircraft Operating Standards, which is currently under revision. Civil UAS operations require a special airworthiness certificate and should follow the process as specified in this document. AC shall not be used as a basis of approval for UAS operations and is applicable to recreational and hobbyists use only. 4.1 Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) Applications for a COA are only accepted from public entities. An application may be referred to the FAA Office of the Chief Counsel (AGC), for determination of the status of an applicant, i.e., public or civil. COAs are typically issued for a period of up to one year, but may be issued for a lesser duration if requested or deemed appropriate. COAs are not required for operations conducted wholly within an active Restricted, Prohibited or Warning Area airspace when operating with permission from the appropriate authority or using agency of that airspace General Process Air Traffic Operations (ATO) is responsible for the COA process. Applications can be made on the internet or can be made on FAA Form , Application for Certificate of Waiver or Authorization. If the application is made on FAA Form it will be sent to Headquarters ATO, through the local Air Traffic Service Area. ATO has developed a guidance checklist covering the application and approval process. This form and guidance material can be found on the internet at via the Air Traffic Airspace (ATA), Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Group link. Prior to issuance of a COA, ATO normally requests a review of the COA application by the UAPO. Specifically, the AFS-400 members of the UAPO evaluates each application to determine if risks associated with the operation have been acceptably mitigated. Formal recommendations are forwarded to ATO from the UAPO at the conclusion of the review process. UAS Interim Operational Approval Guidance NCRSASL - 86

97 4.1.2 National Security Considerations When the Department of Defense or the Department of Homeland Security declares a UAS operation is a matter of national security, the FAA may approve an application for a COA which, under normal circumstances, might not otherwise conform to the guidelines set forth in this guidance document. In this case, national security itself may override risk mitigation requirements and the applicant must declare in the COA application acceptance of all risks associated with the UAS operations. In general, such requests should be directed to the Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, from an equivalent level individual of the applicant s organization. 4.2 Special Airworthiness Certificate Civil applicants are required to apply for a special airworthiness certificate, typically, an experimental certificate. The applicant is required to submit the requisite data to support a determination that the aircraft and its systems, including the control station(s) is designed, built, and maintained in a safe and airworthy condition. Experimental certificates are typically issued for a period of up to one year. Experimental certificates are typically issued to industry and manufacturers wishing to accomplish UAS research and development, testing, crew training, and market survey in accordance with 14 CFR Part In cases where an applicant has been issued a special airworthiness certificate, and concurrently operates a corresponding UAS on a COA in support of a public activity, the applicant must elect, prior to each flight, what authority is to be used to conduct the flight. The use of both a special airworthiness certificate and a COA authorization on a single flight is not permitted General Process For civil UAS operations, the Aircraft Certification Service, Production and Airworthiness Division, AIR-200, at FAA headquarters is responsible for the issuance of special airworthiness certificates. The issuance of an experimental certificate is coordinated with the UAPO as well as AVS and ATO personnel at the headquarters and regional levels. A thorough review is conducted by this team to evaluate the system s airworthiness and operational specifics and to determine mitigations required to meet acceptable standards of safety. 5.0 Alternate Methods of Compliance All limitations and procedures presented in this guidance document are to be considered as general guidelines only. Each application is evaluated on its own technical merit based on its own set of operational parameters and proposed operational profiles, mitigations, and systems. As such, deviations and alternate methods of compliance may be approved and may differ from the information presented in this document. Therefore, if the applicant makes a safety case and presents sufficient data for an alternate means of compliance, then this data should be taken into consideration and evaluated for possible approval. 6.0 UAS Airworthiness All UAS must be shown to be airworthy to conduct flight operations in the NAS. UAS should be maintained and conform to the same airworthiness standards as defined for the 14 CFR parts UAS Interim Operational Approval Guidance NCRSASL - 87

98 under which UAS are intended to be operated. The FAA recognizes that some of the requirements can differ from those for manned aircraft and appropriate changes can be defined. In the future, UAS Maintenance Technician certification will parallel existing standards for manned aviation. As with airworthiness standards, Maintenance Technicians Requirements will be reviewed as part of the data collection process. 6.1 Public Applicants The applicant must provide an airworthiness statement specifying compliance with the proponent s applicable airworthiness policy or criteria. Examples of acceptable policy/criteria include, but are not limited to: DoD: MIL-HDBK 516B, Airworthiness Certification Air Force: AFPD 62-6, USAF Aircraft Airworthiness Certification Army: AR 70-62, Airworthiness Qualification Of US Army Aircraft Systems (Level 1) Navy and Marine Corps: NAVAIRINST C, Flight Clearance Policy for Air Vehicles and Aircraft Systems. Note: As an example, an airworthiness statement could include words to this effect: This COA application for (name of UAS) has been reviewed on behalf of the (name of applicant or agency) in accordance with (MIL-HDBK-516 or specified alternative method) and has been determined to be airworthy to operate as specified in this application subject to the following restrictions (specify the conditions). The statement should be on letterhead paper and both dated and signed by the responsible reviewing authority. 6.2 Civil Applicants Approvals for civil applications using the special airworthiness process receive their airworthiness certification as part of the review process with the FAA. 7.0 Continued Airworthiness Applicants for UAS operational approvals must address continued airworthiness procedures as part of their application. It is highly recommended that all applicants provide the following information: a Continuing Airworthiness Program, a Maintenance Training Program, any unique skill sets or maintenance practices relating to their aircraft and/or aircraft operations that may be outside the current scope and practices of manned aviation and a process to report any applicable data relating to the operation and maintenance of the UAS. All information that is received from UAS operators will aid the FAA in tracking the various existing UAS types and operations. This data will help expedite the regulatory process for UAS and allow the FAA to have a historical data base from which to base current and future UAS regulatory guidance. Accurate recordkeeping is essential in assuring positive operational and quality airworthiness control. UAS Interim Operational Approval Guidance NCRSASL - 88

99 8.0 Flight Operations 8.1 General The guidance presented in this document applies only to those UAS operations affecting areas of the NAS other than active Restricted, Prohibited, or Warning Areas. The FAA is particularly concerned that UAS operate safely among all users of the NAS, including non-cooperative aircraft and other airborne operations not reliably identifiable by radar (i.e., balloons, gliders, parachutists, etc). Unless specifically authorized, UAS operations in other than active Restricted, Prohibited, or Warning Areas, or Class A airspace shall require visual observers, either airborne or groundbased. While considerable work is ongoing to develop a certifiable detect, sense, and avoid system, no current solution exists. Compliance with the see and avoid aspect of 14 CFR , Rightof-Way Rules: Except Water Operations, becomes one of the primary issues in UAS operational approvals. As a result, alternate methods of compliance are required to accomplish the see and avoid function. See and avoid risk mitigation strategies are normally based on the use of visual observers or other methods of segregation. Risk mitigations may also include other methods or systems that an applicant may propose for consideration. An applicant may propose any reasonable type of mitigation or system, however, the FAA approves UAS flight activities that can demonstrate that the proposed operations can be conducted at an acceptable level of safety. Applicants proposing see and avoid strategies in lieu of visual observers, need to support proposed mitigations with system safety studies which indicate the operations can be conducted safely. Acceptable system safety studies must include a hazard analysis, risk assessment, and other appropriate documentation that support an extremely improbable determination. It is the applicant s responsibility to demonstrate that injury to persons or property along the flight path is extremely improbable. UA with performance characteristics that impede normal air traffic operations may be restricted in their operations System Considerations Onboard Cameras/Sensors: Although onboard cameras and sensors that are positioned to observe targets on the ground have demonstrated some capability, their use in detecting airborne operations for the purpose of deconfliction is still quite limited. Therefore, these types of systems may not be considered as a sole mitigation in the see and avoid risk assessment. In general, current designs are not mature and have shown to be insufficient to provide the sole mitigation in the see and avoid risk assessment. Although these systems are currently immature, applicants may be allowed to propose any system solution that provides a mitigation strategy and should be evaluated as a potential solution. Radar and Other Sensors: If special types of radar or other sensors are utilized to mitigate risk, the applicant must provide supporting data which demonstrates that: UAS Interim Operational Approval Guidance NCRSASL - 89

100 o o both cooperative and non-cooperative aircraft, including targets with low radar reflectivity, such as gliders and balloons, can be consistently identified at all operational altitudes and ranges, and, the proposed system can effectively deconflict a potential collision. Lost Link Procedures: In all cases, the UAS must be provided with a means of automatic recovery in the event of a lost link. There are many acceptable approaches to satisfy the requirement. The intent is to ensure airborne operations are predictable in the event of lost link. Flight Termination System (FTS): It is highly desirable that all UAS have system redundancies and independent functionality to ensure the overall safety and predictability of the system. If a UAS is found to be lacking in system redundancies, an independent flight termination system that can be activated manually by the UAS PIC, may be required to safeguard the public. 8.2 Operational Requirements Unless operating in an active Restricted, Prohibited, or Warning Area, UAS operations must adhere to the following requirements Observer Requirement VFR UAS operations may be authorized utilizing either ground-based or airborne visual observers onboard a dedicated chase aircraft. A visual observer is required to perform the see and avoid function as alternative compliance to 14 CFR , Right-of-Way Rules: Except Water Operations. The task of the observer is to provide the pilot of the UAS with instructions to steer the UA clear of any potential collision with other traffic. Visual observer duties require the ability to maintain visual contact with the UA at all times while scanning the immediate environment for potential conflicting traffic. At no time will the visual observer permit the UA to operate outside their line-of-sight. This ensures that any required maneuvering information can be reliably provided to the PIC. The visual limitation will specify both a lateral and vertical distance and shall be regarded as a maximum distance from the observer where a determination of a conflict with another aircraft can be made. When an application is approved by the FAA, the visual limitation distance becomes a directive upon the observer. Generally, observers are to be positioned no greater than one nautical mile laterally and 3000 feet vertically from the UA. The use of nautical miles is based on the fact that the UA is being positioned by the pilot via control stations that typically use moving map displays that are referenced in nautical miles. This distance is predicated on the observer s normal unaided vision. Corrective lenses, spectacles, and contact lenses may be used. When using other aids to vision, such as binoculars, field glasses, or telephoto television, visual observers must use caution to ensure that the UA remains within the approved visual limitation distance of the observer. Due to field of view and distortion issues, the UAS Interim Operational Approval Guidance NCRSASL - 90

101 use of such aids can be used to augment the observer s visual capability but cannot be used as the primary means of visual contact. Although this guidance specifies an observer distance, the small size of some UA may not allow for adequate observation at the one mile limit. It should be understood that this limit is the maximum range allowed and that a practical distance may be something less, with the determination of such at the discretion of the applicant. Therefore, until an on site validation of observer distance is conducted by the FAA, it will remain the responsibility of the applicant to ensure the safety of flight and adequate visual range coverage to mitigate any potential collisions. Conversely, larger UA may accommodate an observer distance greater than the one mile limit. The applicant may establish a distance greater than one mile based on a variety of factors. Increased observer distances may be proposed by the applicant and will be subject to review by the FAA either by on site demonstration or other means. If UAS applications are approved for nighttime operations with flight operations that will depart or arrive between sunset and sunrise, the ground observer(s) must be in place one hour prior to that operation to ensure acclimation to the twilight/nighttime environment ATC Communications Requirements The UAS pilot must have immediate radio communication with appropriate ATC facilities anytime: the UA is being operated in Class A, D or sometimes E airspace (See for operations in Class B or C Airspace) the UA is being operated under instrument flight rules (IFR) it is stipulated under the provisions of any issued COA or a special airworthiness certificate. It is preferred that communications between the UAS pilot and ATC be established through onboard radio equipment to provide a voice relay; this is required for IFR flight Inter-Communications Requirements Any visual observer, sensor operator, or other person charged with providing collision avoidance for the UA must have immediate communication with the UAS pilot. If a chase aircraft is being utilized, immediate communication between the chase aircraft and the UAS pilot shall be required at all times. If the UAS pilot is talking to air traffic control, monitoring of the air traffic control frequency by all UAS crew members (UAS pilots, observers, and chase pilots) is recommended for shared situational awareness. However, unless it is necessary, the UAS PIC or the supplemental pilots are the only crewmembers that will talk to Air Traffic Control Dropping Objects/Hazardous Materials If the UA s intended operation includes the dropping or spraying of aircraft stores outside of active Restricted, Prohibited, or Warning Areas, the application must specifically address the hazard and make a clear case that injury to persons on the ground is extremely remote and operational risks have been sufficiently mitigated. A similar case must be made for hazardous materials carried aboard the UA. UAS Interim Operational Approval Guidance NCRSASL - 91

102 8.2.5 Flight Over Populated Areas Routine UAS operations shall not be conducted over urban or populated areas. UAS operations may be approved in emergency or relief situations if the proposed mitigation strategies are found to be acceptable Flight Over Heavily Trafficked Roads or Open-air Assembly of People UAS operations shall avoid these areas. If flight in these areas is required, the applicant will be required to support proposed mitigations with system safety studies that indicate the operations can be conducted safely. Acceptable system safety studies must include a hazard analysis, risk assessment, and other appropriate documentation that support an extremely improbable determination. Additionally, it is the applicant s responsibility to demonstrate that injury to persons or property along the flight path is extremely improbable. UAS with performance characteristics that impede normal air traffic operations may be restricted in their operations Day/Nighttime Operations All UAS operations outside of Class A airspace must be conducted during daylight hours. Nighttime operations may be considered in other airspace if the applicant provides a safety case and sufficient mitigation to avoid collision hazards at night. Examples of such may be transit operations in Class D airspace over a non-joint use military airfield adjacent to restricted airspace Flights Below Class A Airspace All UAS operations (IFR or VFR) outside of active Restricted, Prohibited or Warning Areas and below flight level (FL) 180 shall be conducted in visual meteorological conditions (VMC) and in accordance with 14 CFR , Basic VFR Weather Minimums, however, a minimum flight visibility of not less than three statue miles (SM) shall be maintained at all times. Cloud clearance requirements shall remain as specified in 14 CFR , Basic VFR Weather Minimums. Special VFR requirements per 14 CFR , Special VFR Weather Minimums, do not apply to UAS operations and cannot be exercised Autonomous Operations It is generally understood that most UAS have some level of autonomy associated with its operation. Although it is possible to have a completely manual UAS, which requires a pilot-in-the-loop, the majority of UAS are autonomous to a certain degree. Only those UAS that have the capability of pilot intervention, or piloton-the-loop, shall be allowed in the NAS outside of Restricted, Prohibited, or Warning areas. UAS that are designed to be completely autonomous, with no capability of pilot intervention, are not authorized in the national airspace system. Although the pilot may be technically considered out-of-the-loop in a lost link scenario, this restriction does not apply to UAS operating under lost link Operations from Off-Airport Locations In most cases, an off-airport location should be situated no closer than five nautical miles (NM) from any airport or heliport. The operational areas, including the launch and recovery zones, should be free from obstructions and reasonable efforts should be made to keep operations away from structures and heavily trafficked roads. Due to the unique attributes of off-airport locations, approval requests need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis Other Mitigations in lieu of Observers See Alternate Methods of Compliance section. UAS Interim Operational Approval Guidance NCRSASL - 92

103 Operating Under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) While operating on an instrument flight plan, the following must exist, be completed, or be complied with: The pilot in command must hold a current instrument rating in a manned aircraft. The aircraft s airworthiness statement includes IFR flight and all equipment is certified and working (including pitot static and transponder checks). Aviation database and charts are current and available to the UAS pilot. An IFR flight plan is filed. An ATC clearance has been obtained and all clearances followed. Direct two-way radio communication between the UAS pilot and ATC is available. Communication relay through the UA is required. Pre-coordination with ATC has been accomplished. The UA is equipped with a certified operating mode C (mode S preferred) transponder. Visual observers are utilized in accordance with this guidance document. ATC radar monitoring is available throughout the portion of the flight in Class A airspace. All operations outside of Class A airspace and active Restricted, Prohibited, or Warning Areas shall be conducted in VMC conditions only Chase Aircraft Operations The chase aircraft must remain at a safe distance from the UA to ensure collision avoidance should a UAS malfunction occur, but remain close enough to provide visual detection of conflicting aircraft in the path of the UA in a timely manner to advise the UAS PIC of the situation. Should the UAS pilot operate the UA from the chase aircraft, the chase aircraft must remain within radio control range of the UA to maintain appropriate signal coverage for flight control or activation of the flight termination system. Chase aircraft may be required to have communication with appropriate ATC facilities based on the applicant s application or mission profile. Chase aircraft are not required in Class A, active Restricted, Prohibited, or Warning Area airspace. Chase operations shall be conducted during daylight hours only. Flight visibility for all UAS chase operations shall be three statute miles or greater. Chase aircraft pilots must not concurrently perform either observer or UA pilot duties along with chase pilot duties. Chase aircraft operating as a formation flight will immediately notify ATC if they are using a non-standard formation. Note: A standard formation is one in which a proximity of no more than 1 mile laterally or longitudinally and within 100 feet vertically from the flight leader is maintained by each wingman. UAS Interim Operational Approval Guidance NCRSASL - 93

104 Note: Nonstandard formations are those operating under any of the following conditions: When the flight leader has requested and ATC has approved other than standard formation dimensions. When operating within an authorized altitude reservation (ALTRV) or under the provisions of a letter of agreement. When the operations are conducted in airspace specifically designed for a special activity Airspace Considerations by Airspace Designation: Note: UA operating in airspace designated as reduced vertical separation minimum (RVSM) airspace must comply with 14 CFR , Operations within Airspace Designated as Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum Airspace. Class A: Observers are not required in Class A. All UAS must be operating on an instrument flight plan. UAS operations approved for Class A must comply with 14 CFR , Operations in Class A Airspace. Class B: UAS operations are currently not authorized. Class B airspace contains terminal areas highest density of manned aircraft in the National Airspace System. As with all applications, the FAA will consider exceptional circumstances. Class C and airspace within 30 nautical miles of an airport listed in 14 CFR : Requests for approval will be handled on a case-by-case basis and may be approved if sufficiently mitigated and a safety case has been established. UAS operations approved for Class C must comply with 14 CFR , Operations in Class C Airspace, and 14 CFR , ATC Transponder and Altitude Reporting Equipment and Use. The transponder requirement will not be waived. Class D: Requests for approval will be handled on a case-by-case basis and may be approved if sufficiently mitigated and a safety case has been established. UAS operations approved for Class D must comply with 14 CFR , Operations in Class D Airspace. Class E: If there is an operating Air Traffic Control Tower Class D rules may apply. UAS operations approved for Class E must comply with 14 CFR , Operating on or in the Vicinity of an Airport in Class E Airspace. Class G: UA operations approved for Class G must comply with 14 CFR , Operating on or in the Vicinity of an Airport in Class G Airspace. 8.3 Oceanic Operations UAS operations wholly contained within Warning areas are handled in the same manner as those operations conducted in active Restricted and Prohibited areas, that is, no specific approval is required and observers or chase aircraft are not required. UAS Interim Operational Approval Guidance NCRSASL - 94

105 8.3.2 Flight Information Region Operations. FAA rules and policies apply in the flight information regions (FIRs) where the FAA is the air traffic service provider. As such, the guidelines specified in this document apply to UAS operations conducted in these FIRs. 9.0 Personnel Qualifications This section addresses the qualifications of UAS pilots, observers, maintainers, and other personnel as appropriate. All references to a pilot certificate refer to an FAA issued private pilot certificate or higher. 9.1 UAS Pilot Qualifications The FAA is focused on insuring that UAS pilots have a common level of understanding of federal aviation regulations applicable to the airspace where the UA will operate. Pilots are responsible for a thorough preflight inspection of the UAS. They are accountable for controlling their aircraft to the same responsible standards as the pilot of a manned aircraft. Pilot qualifications for UAS operations conducted under IFR are addressed in this section. The following items apply to the pilots of all UAS: One pilot in command (PIC) must be designated at all times. The PIC of an aircraft is directly responsible, and is the final authority of, the operation of that aircraft. Pilots must not perform crew duties for more than one UAS at a time. Pilots are not allowed to perform concurrent duties both as pilot and observer Pilot in Command (PIC) The designated PIC is the pilot responsible for the UAS flight operation. The PIC may be augmented by supplemental pilots; however, the PIC retains complete and overall responsibility of the flight, regardless of who may be piloting the UA. It is common for applicants to have both an internal and an external UAS pilot. The PIC can assume any of these positions. The PIC duty may be rotated as necessary to fulfill operational requirements Ratings Rating requirements for the UAS PIC depend on the type of operation conducted and fall into two categories: Operations that require a pilot certificate Operations that do not require a pilot certificate. The requirement for the PIC to hold a pilot certificate is based on various factors including the location of the planned operations, mission profile, size of the UA, and whether or not the operation is conducted within or beyond visual line of sight. Operations without a pilot certificate may be allowed, permitting smaller UA to operate below certain altitudes while controlled strictly by visual line of sight. The cutoff point at which the smaller UA criteria will be utilized is yet to be defined; therefore, each application will be carefully reviewed to assess the feasibility of allowing that type of operation. UAS Interim Operational Approval Guidance NCRSASL - 95

106 Operations requiring a pilot certificate: The PIC shall hold, at a minimum, an FAA pilot certificate under the following circumstances: All operations approved for conduct in Class A, C, D, and E airspace. All operations conducted under IFR (FAA instrument rating required). All operations approved for nighttime operations. All operations conducted at joint use or public airfields. All operations conducted beyond line of sight. At any time the FAA has determined the need based on the UAS characteristics, mission profile, or other operational parameters. Note: The FAA may require specific aircraft category and class ratings in manned aircraft depending on the UAS seeking approval and the characteristics of its flight controls interface. Operations not requiring a pilot certificate: The PIC may not be required to hold a pilot certificate for operations approved and conducted solely within visual line of sight in Class G airspace. For the PIC to be exempt from the pilot certificate requirement the following conditions must exist and the alternate compliance method described below must be followed: The operation is conducted in a sparsely populated location, and, The operation is conducted from a privately owned airfield, military installation, or off-airport location. Visual line of sight operations conducted no further than 1 NM laterally from the UAS pilot and at an altitude of no more than 400 feet above ground level (AGL) at all times. Operations shall be conducted during daylight hours only. Operations shall be conducted no closer than 5 NM from any airport or heliport. Alternate Compliance Method: In lieu of a pilot certificate, the PIC must have successfully completed, at a minimum, FAA private pilot ground instruction, and have passed the written examination. Note: The FAA may require an instrument rating in a specific aircraft category in manned aircraft depending on the UAS seeking approval and the characteristics of its flight controls interface Currency The applicant shall provide a process that ensures that the pilots receive an appropriate level of currency in the UAS being operated. At a minimum, the PIC must demonstrate three takeoffs (launch) and landings (recovery) in the specific UAS in the previous 90 days. For those operations approved for night operations, the PIC must demonstrate three takeoffs (launch) and landings (recovery) in the specific UAS at night to a full stop in the previous 90 days. UAS Interim Operational Approval Guidance NCRSASL - 96

107 For those operations that require a certificated pilot per section above, the PIC, in order to exercise the privileges of his certificate, shall have flight reviews and maintain currency in manned aircraft per 14 CFR 61.56, Flight Review and 61.57, Recent Flight Experience: Pilot in Command. For operations approved for night or IFR, the PIC shall maintain currency per 14 CFR 61.57, Recent Flight Experience: Pilot in Command, as applicable Medical The PIC shall maintain, at a minimum, a valid FAA Class 2 medical certificate issued under 14 CFR part 67, and have it in their possession Training In addition to the aforementioned training required for a pilot certificate, UAS pilots will have additional training in all specific details of the UAS being operated including normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures. This must include manufacturer specific training (or military equivalent), demonstrated proficiency, and testing in the UAS being operated Supplemental Pilots Supplemental pilots are those pilots assigned UA flight duty to augment the PIC. It is common for applicants to have both an internal and an external UA pilot. The supplemental pilot can assume any of these positions Ratings No specific rating is required for supplemental pilots unless they are assuming the role of pilot in command. However, at a minimum, they must have successfully completed private pilot ground school and have passed the written test Currency The applicant shall provide a process that ensures that the pilots maintain an appropriate level of currency in the UAS being operated Medical Supplemental pilots shall maintain, at a minimum, a valid FAA Class 2 medical certificate issued under 14 CFR part 67, and have it in their possession. Any supplemental pilot acting as a dedicated visual observer or flying the UA on a visual basis shall also maintain a valid FAA Class 2 medical certificate Training In addition to all training required for receiving and maintaining a pilot certificate, the UAS pilot shall be additionally trained in all specific details of the UAS being operated including normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures. 9.2 Observer Qualifications All observers must have an understanding of federal aviation regulations applicable to the airspace where the UA will operate. Observers are considered a crewmember of the UAS. Observers must not perform crew duties for more than one UAS at a time. Observers are not allowed to perform concurrent duties both as pilot and observer Medical All observers shall maintain, at a minimum, a valid FAA Class 2 medical certificate issued under 14 CFR 67, and have it in their possession. 14 CFR 91.17, Alcohol or Drugs, applies to all UAS crewmembers, including observers. UAS Interim Operational Approval Guidance NCRSASL - 97

108 9.2.2 Training Observers must have completed sufficient training to communicate to the pilot any instructions required to remain clear of conflicting traffic. This training, at a minimum, shall include knowledge of the rules and responsibilities described in 14 CFR , Operating Near Other Aircraft; 14 CFR , Right-of-Way Rules: Except Water Operations; and 14 CFR , Basic VFR Weather Minimums; knowledge of air traffic and radio communications, including the use of approved ATC/pilot phraseology; and knowledge of appropriate sections of the Aeronautical Information Manual. 9.3 Other Personnel Qualifications Ancillary personnel such as systems operators or mission specialists must be thoroughly familiar with and possess operational experience of the equipment being utilized. If the subject systems being utilized are for observation and detection of other aircraft for collision avoidance purposes, they must be thoroughly trained on collision avoidance procedures and techniques and have direct communication with the UAS pilot, observer, and other applicable personnel on an intercommunication system. 9.4 Maintenance Personnel Qualifications Ratings Will be established as more data is collected and a regulatory guideline is developed Currency It is suggested that applicants follow applicable guidelines of 14 CFR as appropriate until final UAS regulatory guidelines are available Medical No medical requirements have been defined at this time Training It is highly recommended that a Maintainer/Operator of a UAS submit a training program. This requirement will be further defined as more data is collected and the regulatory process better defines these guidelines. UAS Interim Operational Approval Guidance NCRSASL - 98

109 Revision History Date Action Initial release as AFS-400 Policy Memo 05-01, Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operations in the U.S. National Airspace System Interim Operational Approval Guidance. Cancelled AFS-400 Policy Memo and Reissued Updated Document as Interim Operational Approval Guidance 08-01, Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operations in the U. S. National Airspace System. Signed March 13, 2008 K. Douglas Davis Manager, Unmanned Aircraft Program Office, AIR-160 UAS Interim Operational Approval Guidance NCRSASL - 99

110 NCRSASL - 100

111 NCRSASL - 101

112 NCRSASL - 102

113 NCRSASL - 103

114 NCRSASL - 104

115 NCRSASL - 105

116 ORDER A National Policy 10/27/2010 SUBJ: Airworthiness Certification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems and Optionally Piloted Aircraft This order establishes procedures for issuing a special airworthiness certificate in the experimental category for the purposes of research and development, market survey, or crew training to unmanned aircraft systems and optionally piloted aircraft. The procedures in this order apply to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) manufacturing aviation safety inspectors (ASI) and FAA airworthiness ASIs. /s/ Frank P. Paskiewicz Manager Production and Airworthiness Division, AIR-200 Distribution: Electronic Initiated By: AIR-200 NCRSASL - 106

117 Paragraph Table of Contents Page Chapter 1. Introduction 1. Purpose of This Order Audience Where Can I Find This Order Explanation of Policy Changes Action Date Chapter 2. Policies and Procedures Section 1. Aircraft Registration 1. Experimental Certificates Responsibilities of FAA ASIs Possession and Display of a Certificate of Aircraft Registration, an Airworthiness Certificate, and an Aircraft Flight Manual Aircraft Registration Registration Numbers, Reservation of Registration Numbers, Special Registration Numbers, and Size of Registration Numbers Inspection and Maintenance Programs Section 2. Airworthiness Certificates 1. Issuance of Original Airworthiness Certificates Reissue of Airworthiness Certificates Replacement or Amendment of Airworthiness Certificates Surrendered Airworthiness Certificate Safeguarding FAA Airworthiness Certificates Recording of Inspections Records Retention Chapter 3. Special Airworthiness Certification Section 1. Procedural Requirements 1. General Application for an Airworthiness Certificate Certification Procedures NCRSASL - 107

118 Paragraph Page Section 2. Certification and Operation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems 1. Experimental Certificates FAA Form , Special Airworthiness Certificate, and Attachments Onsite Activities Flight Test Areas Operating Limitations Section 3. Certification and Operation of Optionally Piloted Aircraft 1. Manned Aircraft Safety Pilot Certification Process Appendix A. Sample Operating Limitations, Experimental: Research and Development, Market Survey, and/or Crew Training. 1. General Information... A-1 2. Program Letter... A-3 3. Initial Flight Testing... A-3 4. Authorized Flight Operations Area... A-4 5. UA Pilots and Observers... A-4 6. Equipage... A-7 7. Communications... A-7 8. Flight Conditions... A-7 9. Flight Termination and Lost Link Procedures... A Inspection and Maintenance... A Information Reporting... A Revisions and Other Provisions... A UAS Modifications... A-10 Appendix B. Sample Operating Limitations for Optionally Piloted Aircraft 1. Applicability...B-1 2. OPA Limitations...B-1 NCRSASL - 108

119 10/27/ A Paragraph Page Appendix C. Sample Program Letter for Unmanned Aircraft Systems for an Experimental Certificate 1. Overview of Project...C-1 2. Definition of Flight Areas...C-1 3. Aircraft Configuration...C-2 4. Inspection and Maintenance...C-3 5. Pilot Qualification...C-3 6. Aircraft Registration and Identification Marking...C-3 7. ATC Transponder and Altitude Reporting System Equipment and Use...C-3 8. Method for See-and-Avoid...C-3 9. Safety Risk Management...C System Configuration...C System Safety Flight Termination and Lost Link...C Command and Control...C Control Stations...C Control Frequencies...C-4 Appendix D. Safety Checklist 1. Introduction... D-1 2. Aircraft Segment... D-1 3. Command and Communications Segment... D-4 4. Ground Support Equipment... D-8 5. Processes and Procedures... D-8 6. Operations... D-9 7. Organizational Considerations... D-13 Appendix E. Administrative Information 1. Distribution...E-1 2. Background...E-1 3. Authority to Change This Order...E-1 4. Forms...E-1 5. Deviations...E-1 6. Suggestions for Improvement...E-2 7. Records Management...E-2 Appendix F. Definitions...F-1 Appendix G. FAA Form , Directive Feedback Information... G-1 iv NCRSASL - 109

120 Chapter 1. Introduction 1. Purpose of This Order. This order establishes procedures for issuing special airworthiness certificates in the experimental category for the purposes of research and development, market survey, or crew training to unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) and manned aircraft integrated with UAS technology. For the purposes of this directive, manned aircraft integrated with UAS technology are referred to as optionally piloted aircraft (OPA). The procedures contained in this order apply to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) manufacturing aviation safety inspectors (ASI) and to FAA airworthiness ASIs. Currently, representatives of the Administrator or delegated organizations are not authorized to issue special airworthiness certificates in the experimental category to UAS and OPA. Note: The use of the word should throughout this order refers to a recommended practice. The associated activity is not a requirement; therefore, a record of completeion is not required. 2. Audience. All manufacturing inspection offices, aircraft certification office personnel, directorate managers, flight standards division managers, flight standards district offices (FSDO), and Air Traffic Organization (ATO) personnel involved in unmanned aircraft (UA) operations. 3. Where Can I Find This Order. You can find this order on the internet at 4. Explanation of Policy Changes. This revision includes requirements for certificating optionally piloted aircraft, changes the safety checklist, and revises and adds definitions. 5. Action Date. FAA managing offices must implement the procedures contained in this order no later than 30 days from the date of issuance. NCRSASL - 110

121 NCRSASL - 111

122 1. Experimental Certificates. Chapter 2. Policies and Procedures Section 1. Aircraft Registration a. Personnel Authorized to Issue Experimental Certificates to UAS and OPA. Consistent with applicable Aircraft Certification Service (AIR) policies and instructions, FAA manufacturing ASIs are authorized to issue experimental airworthiness certificates. For the purposes of this directive, FAA manufacturing ASIs are responsible for the issuance of both original and recurrent airworthiness certificates and approvals for UAS and OPA. b. Personnel Not Authorized to Issue Experimental Certificates to UAS and OPA. Representatives of the Administrator or delegated organizations authorized under part 183 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) are not permitted to issue experimental certificates to UAS and OPA. c. Electronic Signatures. The use of electronic signatures on experimental certificates is not permitted. 2. Responsibilities of FAA ASIs. The procedural requirements for issuing airworthiness certificates in this order differ from those in FAA Order , Airworthiness Certification of Aircraft and Related Products. Order states that FAA manufacturing ASIs are responsible for issuing original airworthiness certificates and FAA airworthiness ASIs are responsible for issuing recurrent airworthiness certificates. As stated in paragraph 1 of this section, FAA manufacturing ASIs are responsible for issuing airworthiness certificates for UAS and OPA. During the certification process, airworthiness ASIs review and accept the UAS and OPA inspection and maintenance program. 3. Possession and Display of a Certificate of Aircraft Registration, an Airworthiness Certificate, and an Aircraft Flight Manual. The unique aspects of UAS design and configuration make compliance with 14 CFR (a) and (b), Civil aircraft: Certifications required, unnecessary. The same is true for 91.9(b)(2), Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard requirements. The purpose of carrying and displaying these documents is for the benefit of the pilot, crew, passengers, and FAA. Because the aircraft is unmanned, the applicant must petition the FAA for relief from compliance with this requirement in accordance with 14 CFR part 11, General Rulemaking Procedures. If an exemption is granted, the aircraft registration, airworthiness certificate, and aircraft flight manual must be maintained at the location defined in the exemption. 4. Aircraft Registration. a. Registration. The procedures for UA registration and issuance of registration numbers are contained in 14 CFR part 47, Aircraft Registration. Requirements for OPA registration can be found in Order The registration of UA is not a function of airworthiness certification; however, U.S. registration is a prerequisite for issuance of an experimental airworthiness certificate. The FAA must ensure that any UAS presented for airworthiness certification is properly registered (49 U.S.C (c) and 14 CFR ). NCRSASL - 112

123 b. Proof of Ownership. The applicant for registration of a UA must submit proof of ownership to the FAA Aircraft Registration Branch (AFS-750) that meets the requirements prescribed in part 47. Aeronautical Center (AC) Form , Aircraft Bill of Sale, or its equivalent, may be used as proof of ownership. The first time the UA is registered, the manufacturer must also complete and submit AC Form , Affidavit of Ownership for Experimental Aircraft Including Amateur-Built Aircraft and Other Non-Type Certificated Aircraft. If the applicant did not purchase the UA from the last registered owner, the applicant must submit a complete chain of ownership from the last registered owner to the applicant. The purchaser under a contract of conditional sale is considered the owner for the purpose of registration. The contract of conditional sale may be submitted as proof of ownership in lieu of a bill of sale. 5. Registration Numbers, Reservation of Registration Numbers, Special Registration Numbers, and Size of Registration Numbers. a. Registration Numbers. All U.S. civil aircraft registration numbers are prefixed by an N. The registration number, apart from the N prefix, is made up of one to five symbols, the last two of which may be alphabetical. This alphabetical suffix must be preceded by at least one numerical symbol. The lowest possible number is N1. A zero never precedes the first number. For example: N1 through N99999, all symbols are numeric. N1A through N9999Z, single alphabetical suffix. N1AA through N999ZZ, double alphabetical suffix. Note: To avoid confusion with the numbers zero and one, the letters O and I are never used as alphabetical suffixes. b. Reservation of Registration Numbers. (1) A person may reserve a registration number of his or her choice, if available, for 1 year by sending a written request and the appropriate fee for each number to be reserved to the following address: FAA Aircraft Registration Branch, AFS-750 Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center P.O. Box Oklahoma City, OK (2) The applicant should list five numbers in case the first choice is not available. Reservations may be renewed from year to year by paying the appropriate fee before the end of the renewal period. If the renewal payment is not received before the end of the 1-year period, reservation of the special registration number will expire. Note: After AFS-750 has been notified that the numbers have been permanently affixed to the aircraft and the airworthiness certificate has been issued, no subsequent fees will apply. NCRSASL - 113

124 c. Special Registration Numbers. The following procedures apply: (1) If a special registration number is desired for the UA, the owner must apply, in writing, to AFS-750, describing the UA for a special registration number. Permission to place the special number on the UA will be given on AC Form , Assignment of Special Registration Numbers. (2) The owner must complete, sign, and return the original form to AFS-750 within 5 days after the special registration number is affixed to the UA. (3) The duplicate of Form and the present experimental certificate must be presented to the FAA ASI, who will issue a replacement experimental certificate showing the new registration number. (4) The old certificate of aircraft registration and the duplicate Form must be available until the new certificate of aircraft registration is received (see 47.15(f), Identification number). (5) Any changes in the current assignment of nationality and registration numbers will be processed as a request for assignment of special registration numbers. d. Size of Registration Numbers. Nationality and registration marks displayed on aircraft must be in accordance with 14 CFR part 45, Identification and Registration Marking, except as provided in 45.22(d), Exhibition, antique, and other aircraft: Special rules. 6. Inspection and Maintenance Programs. Applicants are required to develop an inspection and maintenance program for the continued airworthiness of the UAS or OPA, in accordance with (d)(1), Experimental certificates: Aircraft to be used for market surveys, sales demonstrations, and customer crew training. Information on inspection and maintenance programs and how they relate to UAS or OPA follows: a. Inspection Elements. Inspection elements include the items to be inspected, the inspection interval, and instructions for completion of the inspection (for example, visual, eddy current, and operational). All UAS or OPA programs must include this information appropriate to the UAS or OPA and the type of operation. Operators should see 14 CFR part 43, appendix D, Scope and Detail of Items (as Applicable to the Particular Aircraft) To Be Included in Annual and 100-Hour Inspections, as a general guideline for the types of items that should be included. b. Maintenance Elements. Maintenance elements describe what and how maintenance is to be performed. For most UAS or OPA, this will simply be how discrepancies are recorded and how logbook entries are made (for example, how often, what is included). The specifics of what is required for the operator s maintenance program are defined in the operating limitations. NCRSASL - 114

125 Section 2. Airworthiness Certificates 1. Issuance of Original Airworthiness Certificates. FAA Form , Special Airworthiness Certificate, is the only airworthiness certificate that can be issued to a UAS or OPA. Form will be referred to as being a special classification within this order. Within the special classification, an experimental certificate may be issued to a UAS in the following categories (see , Experimental certificates): a. Research and development (R&D), (a). b. Crew training, (c). c. Market survey, (f). 2. Reissue of Airworthiness Certificates. a. If requested by an applicant, an experimental certificate may be reissued. The applicant must notify AIR-200 and provide information relative to the intent to request certification. b. If the applicant does not plan to make changes to the UAS or OPA, the certification process may be abbreviated. The applicant is required to declare that the information in the safety checklist is accurate and has not changed. This declaration must be made in writing. Any modifications accomplished during the previous period of certification must have been reviewed by the FAA before incorporation. The applicant must provide a new program letter to AIR-200 for the period covering the certification. AIR-200 will verify that the requirements for changes have been satisfied. Any changes to the inspection and maintenance program will be coordinated with the geographically responsible FSDO. c. If an applicant produces a duplicate UA or OPA with no changes from the original, reissue procedures described above may be used for certification. d. AIR-200 will generate new operating limitations and coordinate with the manufacturing ASI. e. The ASI will notify AIR-200 within 2 business days that the UA or OPA was successfully certificated. 3. Replacement or Amendment of Airworthiness Certificates. Changes to the current airworthiness certificate require specific actions and the issuance of a new Form Each form will be completed in accordance with this order. a. Replacement. (1) The FAA may issue a replacement airworthiness certificate when a certificate is declared lost, has been mutilated, or is no longer legible. The replacement airworthiness certificate must carry the original issue date of the certificate being replaced, preceded by a capital R in the Date block of the certificate. Replacement certificates also will be issued when the UA or OPA registration number has been changed. In these cases, a new application for airworthiness certification is not required. NCRSASL - 115

126 (2) A request for a replacement certificate is made to the issuing certification office (manufacturing inspection district office (MIDO)/manufacturing inspection satellite office (MISO)). The registered owner makes this request by submitting a signed statement containing the registration number (N-number), serial number, make, and model of the UA or OPA, and a reason the replacement certificate is needed. Replacement of airworthiness certificates must not be accomplished by verbal agreement. (3) A replacement airworthiness certificate may be issued without supporting documentation from AFS-750 if the date of issuance and the airworthiness classification and/or category of the lost or mutilated certificate can be positively established from the UAS or OPA records, or from the remains of the certificate. If there is insufficient data on which to base issuance of the replacement certificate, the FAA ASI will request copies of the appropriate data (such as the application form or previously issued airworthiness certificate) from AFS-750. (4) Before issuing a replacement certificate, the FAA must review the UAS or OPA records and, if necessary, inspect the UAS or OPA to ensure that the applicant s request is justified and that the UAS or OPA is eligible for a special airworthiness certificate. (5) A copy of the replacement certificate must be forwarded to AFS-750. b. Amendment. (1) A special airworthiness certificate may be amended when there is a change in the operating limitations for a UAS or OPA. Note: Changes to any system, component, or software of a UAS or OPA may affect the operating limitations imposed by the experimental certificate. Applicants must consult with AIR-200 and the issuing office concerning changes to the UAS or OPA that may impact any operating limitation imposed. (2) When a certificate is amended, the issuance date will be the current date, and the capital letter A will be typed in front of the date. (3) Any amendment of an airworthiness certificate will require submission of FAA Form , Application for Airworthiness Certificate. An appropriate record entry, in accordance with this order, will be made in the UAS or OPA records documenting the issuance of the amended certificate. (4) A copy of the amended certificate must be forwarded to AFS Surrendered Airworthiness Certificate. a. Written Authorization. An aircraft owner or authorized representative who voluntarily surrenders an airworthiness certificate by written authorization must state why the certificate is being surrendered. The authorization and certificate must be forwarded to AFS-750 for retention in the permanent airworthiness files for the UA or OPA. NCRSASL - 116

127 10/27/ A b. Selling or Leasing in the United States. When a UA or OPA owner or operator sells or leases a U.S.-owned UA or OPA to a purchaser in the United States, the registration may be transferred or the UA or OPA may be deregistered. In either case, the airworthiness certificate must be surrendered to the FAA issuing office by the current UA or OPA owner or operator. c. Selling or Leasing to Other Countries. When a UA or OPA owner or operator sells or leases a U.S.-owned UA or OPA to a purchaser in another country for operations and registration, the aircraft is deregistered and the airworthiness certificate is no longer effective. Therefore, the airworthiness certificate must be surrendered to the FAA by the UA or OPA owner or operator. 5. Safeguarding FAA Airworthiness Certificates. Airworthiness certificates are official forms and must be safeguarded by those FAA ASIs who are charged with their issuance. Airworthiness certificates may not be produced in a computerized electronic format. Every measure must be taken to ensure these certificates are not obtained by unauthorized persons. At no time may a blank certificate be given to any unauthorized individual. Blank airworthiness certificates must be secured in a locked container when left unattended. 6. Recording of Inspections. FAA Form , Conformity Inspection Record, is used to document airworthiness certification. Form must be prepared in accordance with the instructions shown on the back of the form. 7. Records Retention. A copy of all certification documents are to be retained in the project files of the issuing ASI as required by Order Form must be retained in accordance with FAA Order , Records Organization, Transfer, and Destruction Standards, and any other National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)-approved document requirements. 2-6 NCRSASL - 117

128 Chapter 3. Special Airworthiness Certification Section 1. Procedural Requirements 1. General. The procedures in this chapter provide guidance material associated with airworthiness certification and the issuance of Form Subpart H of part 21, Airworthiness Certificates, prescribes the procedural requirements for airworthiness certification for experimental aircraft. 2. Application for an Airworthiness Certificate. Form is required whenever a special airworthiness certificate is issued or amended. This includes changes to operating limitations that may have been prescribed. The applicant must complete the appropriate sections and sign the application. A sample program letter, unique to UAS, has been prepared as appendix B to this order. The applicant s program letter must be submitted to the FAA with any other document(s) required for the requested certification. The program letter is based on the requirements of (d), Experimental certificates: General. 3. Certification Procedures. In no case may any UAS or OPA be operated as civil unless there is an appropriate and valid airworthiness certificate issued for that UAS or OPA. The following procedures describe the details for issuance of Form , consistent with any other specific procedures that may be prescribed in other paragraphs. The FAA must conduct a safety evaluation and inspections necessary to verify proper completion of the certification procedures listed below, including any other inspections deemed appropriate for that certification. a. Program Letter. The applicant must provide a completed program letter to AIR-200 that includes the information contained in the sample program letter template provided in appendix B to this order. The sample template identifies the aircraft, the purpose of the certificate, the area over which the requested operations are to be conducted, the duration of the program, and other required information. The template must also contain information on the following specific areas: (1) Containment. The FAA is particularly concerned with the ability of the aircraft to be contained within the boundaries of the proposed flight area. The applicant s ability to provide information that satisfies this requirement will help determine and define the operational area. (2) Lost link. The applicant must provide a detailed process in the safety checklist describing the sequence the UA will follow in the event command and control is lost. This process may result in safely returning to a predefined lost-link waypoint, or any other procedure that is safe and predictable. (3) Flight recovery. In the event the UA command and control link is unrecoverable, an independent means to safely terminate the flight must be provided. b. Safety Checklist. The applicant must provide a completed safety checklist to AIR-200 that includes the information contained in the template provided in appendix D to this order. The safety checklist assists the applicant in providing all the required information during the safety evaluation. This document is maintained on the FAA UAS website at or may be obtained from AIR-200. NCRSASL - 118

129 c. Safety Evaluation. The FAA UAS team typically consists of personnel from AIR-200, AFS-407 (Unmanned Aircraft Program Office (UAPO)), AJR-36 (High Altitude Redesign (HAR) UAS Group), AFS-300 (Aircraft Maintenance Division), the geographically responsible MIDO/MISO or certificate management office/certificate management unit (CMO/CMU), FSDO, and ATO. The FAA UAS team will conduct a review of the information in the applicant s program letter and safety checklist. The review may take place at the applicant s facility, the MIDO/MISO, FAA Headquarters, or a location to be determined by the FAA. (1) The applicant is expected to provide a detailed explanation of the information provided in the safety checklist. The applicant must provide a presentation consisting of detailed system descriptions using block diagrams and schematics, and explain how the system operates. The applicant is expected to discuss how the system is designed, constructed, and manufactured, including engineering processes, software development and control, electronic hardware development and control, configuration management, and quality assurance. The applicant must also be prepared to discuss the proposed flight test area in detail. (2) The FAA must determine if the applicant s system is safe to operate in the National Airspace System (NAS) based on operational risk and safety considerations. The applicant will only get credit towards achieving this goal by providing the FAA with a complete understanding of the UAS or OPA. If the applicant s system is found to pose acceptable risk, AIR-200 will schedule a visit to the proposed flight test area within 30 to 60 days. The purpose of this visit will be to inspect the applicant s aircraft (and system of control), accept/approve the UAS or OPA inspection and maintenance program, review and issue operating limitations, and issue the experimental certificate. The applicant is expected to perform a test fight immediately after the certificate is issued to allow the FAA to validate the flight test area. (3) The following items must be submitted by the applicant as supporting documentation required by the safety checklist. These items must be submitted before issuance of the requested airworthiness certificate: (a) Proposed operating area. The proposed operating area must be plotted on an aeronautical chart with coordinates (latitude and longitude) that identify the area boundary. The distances of the boundary legs must be provided (for example, if the operating area is a rectangle, provide the length of the sides). The proposed altitudes of operation also must be included. Other types of charts and maps may be included in addition to the aeronautical charts. (b) Operations manuals and checklists. All appropriate operating manuals, including limitations and checklists (normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures), must be provided. (c) Training program. Applicants must provide an appropriate training curriculum for pilots, observers, chase operations, and ground personnel. Applicants must also provide documentation verifying that personnel have successfully completed all necessary training. (d) Licenses and certificates. Applicants will be informed that the FAA will request evidence of FAA pilot s license and/or medical certificates. Personnel not requiring a certificate, but required to have successfully completed an FAA-accepted pilot ground school, must ensure the written examination results are available to the FAA. These documents must be made NCRSASL - 119

130 available at any time upon request of the FAA, and will be verified during the safety evaluation or the meeting referenced in paragraph 3d below. (e) Frequency spectrum. Before conducting operations, the frequency spectrum used for operation and control of the UA or OPA must be approved by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or other appropriate government oversight agency. (This item may be included as an operating limitation.) d. Onsite Meeting and Schedule. At the completion of the safety evaluation, an onsite meeting and inspection will be scheduled by AIR-200. This meeting is normally attended by the entire FAA team. However, scheduling the onsite meeting is dependent on several requirements that must be completed at least 30 days before the onsite meeting date. If this is not possible, the meeting will be postponed. Completion of the following items is necessary before the meeting: (1) Exemption to 91.9(b) and (a) and (b), if required; (2) Alternate marking approval letter, if required by 45.22(d); (3) Registration through the FAA Aircraft Registration Branch (AFS-750) in accordance with part 47; and (4) All open action items identified during the safety evaluation. NCRSASL - 120

131 Section 2. Certification and Operation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems 1. Experimental Certificates. The procedures in this section apply to the issuance of experimental airworthiness certificates under the provisions of (a), (c), and (f), Experimental certificates: Research and development, crew training, and market surveys. These are described below. a. Research and Development. Under (a), UAS are eligible for an experimental certificate for the purpose of research and development. The applicant may conduct research to determine whether an idea warrants further development. This includes testing new design concepts, aircraft equipment installations, operating techniques, or new uses for aircraft. In addition, the operation of a chase plane or other aircraft not otherwise eligible for a standard or an experimental certificate (but necessary for use in direct connection with the R&D project) is considered to be within the scope of this purpose. b. Crew Training. Under (c), UAS are eligible for an experimental certificate for the purpose of training the applicant s flight crews. These flight crews would normally be the manufacturer s employees necessary to be trained in experimental aircraft. Training must be accomplished by flight instructors certificated in accordance with 14 CFR part 61. c. Market Surveys. Under (f), U.S. manufacturers of UAS may apply for an experimental certificate for the purpose of market surveys, sales demonstrations, and customer crew training. The applicant must ensure the provisions of (d)(2) and (d)(3) are met by providing the FAA ASI with the estimated time or number of flights required for the market survey operation, as well as the area or itinerary over which the operations are to be conducted. Customer crew training must be accomplished by flight instructors certificated in accordance with 14 CFR part 61. (1) The FAA ASI must ensure the applicant meets the provisions of , Experimental certificates: Aircraft to be used for market surveys, sales demonstrations, and customer crew training. These provisions must be met before issuing the experimental certificate. must: (2) In addition to meeting the requirements in , an applicant under (a) Establish an inspection and maintenance program for the continued airworthiness of the aircraft, and (b) Show evidence that the aircraft has been flown for at least 50 hours, or for at least 5 hours if it is a type certificated aircraft which has been modified (see (d)(2)). Flight hours flown under its experimental airworthiness certificate (R&D, manufacturer s crew training, or market survey) or an FAA Certificate of Waiver or Authorization may be considered to meet this rule. This requirement must be specified in the operating limitations. NCRSASL - 121

132 2. FAA Form , Special Airworthiness Certificate, and Attachments. a. Purpose of Form Form (GPO pad only) is used for certification of all UAS. b. Effective Period. An experimental certificate for R&D, crew training, or market surveys is effective for 1 year or less after the date of issuance. c. Operating Limitations. Operating limitations generally applicable to nonstandard aircraft are printed on the reverse side of the form. The FAA also may prescribe additional operating limitations deemed necessary for the special purpose involved as authorized by (i), Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating limitations. The additional limitations will be enumerated on a separate sheet, dated, signed, and attached to Form See paragraph 5 of this section for information regarding additional operating limitations. The first page of the operating limitations is prepared on FAA letterhead paper. 3. Onsite Activities. After the safety evaluation is completed, as described in section 1, paragraph 3c. of this chapter, an onsite meeting and inspection will be scheduled. Onsite activities consist of the following: a. Record Inspection. The FAA ASI must do the following: (1) Obtain from the applicant a properly executed Form and any other documents required for the certification. (2) Review the documentation provided by the applicant to determine that the registration requirements of part 47 have been met. (3) Check with AFS-750 to determine if a denial letter exists for the particular UA. This may assist the ASI in determining UA eligibility. (4) Review the maintenance records to determine that any required maintenance and inspections have been accomplished. Records must include a statement that UAS has been inspected and found to be in condition for safe operation, as described in paragraph 3c(1)(a), below. (5) Provide copies of the applicable maintenance and inspection program to the Flight Standards Airworthiness ASI who will participate in the review process. (6) Following a sufficient review time, ensure the Flight Standards Airworthiness ASI has reviewed and accepted the applicable inspection and maintenance program as described in the applicant s program letter. Note: The maintenance program must include all supporting systems and equipment, for example, ground stations, launch and recovery systems, and backup generators. NCRSASL - 122

133 (7) Review the applicant s weight and balance data for accuracy and currency for the aircraft submitted. (8) Ensure the applicant has complied with all relevant airworthiness directives (ADs). (9) Establish all required documentation and records have been provided for the UAS. (10) Determine that the system configuration has been established and corresponds to the reviewed documentation. b. UAS Inspection. The applicant must arrange with the FAA to make the aircraft and related support systems available for inspection to determine the following: (1) The aircraft nationality and registration marks are in accordance with part 45 or alternate marking approval from AIR-200. Note: The UA is not required to be identified as described in 45.11(a), Aircraft and aircraft engines, as related to fireproof identification plates, but it must be marked with a unique identifying number. (2) The flight control system operates properly. (3) The engine(s), propeller(s), and associated instruments operate in accordance with the manufacturer s instructions. (4) The pitot-static and transponder inspections have been certified in accordance with , Altimeter system and altitude reporting equipment tests and inspections, and , ATC transponder tests and inspections. In addition, associated instruments must operate properly, if applicable. (5) All elements of the control station operate properly, as demonstrated by normal preflight operational transmit and receiver link checks of the control station to the UA. c. Certificate Issuance. (1) If the UAS meets the requirements for the certification requested, the FAA must (a) Make an entry in the maintenance records. The following or a similarly worded statement must be entered: I find this Unmanned Aircraft meets the requirements for the certification requested, and have issued a special airworthiness certificate dated (MMM/DD/YYYY). The operation of this Unmanned Aircraft System is contingent upon (applicant s name) compliance with (title of the submitted program letter and documentation) and the operating limitations of this airworthiness certificate. A new condition inspection is required before issuance of another special airworthiness certificate. Signed: Aviation Safety Inspector, (Office Code) NCRSASL - 123

134 (b) Issue Form When completing block A of Form , Category Designation, the FAA ASI will include the words Experimental (Unmanned Aircraft or Optionally Piloted Aircraft) under the Purpose section of block A. The FAA ASI will write any of the following, as appropriate: Research & Development, Crew Training, or Market Survey. (c) Complete sections V and VIII of Form according to the instructions contained in chapter 8 of Order The ASI will make an annotation in section II, block B identifying the aircraft as unmanned. The words Unmanned Aircraft or Optionally Piloted Aircraft will be entered in the block immediately after the preprinted wording until such time that Form is revised. (d) Examine, review, and route the certification file according to the instructions contained in chapter 8 of Order (2) If the UAS does not meet the requirements for the certification requested, and the airworthiness certificate is denied, the FAA must (a) Write a letter to the applicant stating the reason(s) for denying the airworthiness certificate, and (b) Attach a copy of the denial letter to Form and forward it to AFS-750 to be made part of the aircraft record. 4. Flight Test Areas. a. Compliance. The assigned test area is prescribed in accordance with , Flight test areas. The FAA must evaluate each application to ensure the flight test area does not exceed that which is reasonably required to accomplish the program. Actions pertaining to flight test areas must be coordinated through AIR-200, AFS-407, the assigned MIDO/MISO and FSDO, AJR-36, and the nearest ATO office assigned geographic responsibility. The applicant must perform a test fight immediately after the certificate is issued to allow the FAA to validate the flight test area. b. Assigned Flight Test Area Requirements. All UAS flight testing operations must be limited to the assigned flight test area. This is required until the aircraft is shown to be controllable throughout its normal range of speeds and execution of all maneuvers. In addition, the aircraft must not have demonstrated any hazardous operating characteristics or design features. The flight test area may or may not be expanded depending on the availability of an additional area that is remote and sparsely populated. (1) The FAA typically will assign a flight test area that has a defined perimeter. The shape of the perimeter can resemble a square, rectangle, or circle, or it could be multisided. The applicant will provide latitude and longitude coordinates for the flight test area. NCRSASL - 124

135 (2) In the case of flight testing an aircraft from an airport surrounded by a densely populated area (but with at least one acceptable approach/departure route of flight), the FAA must ensure a route of flight is selected that subjects the fewest persons and least amount property to possible hazards. The description of the area selected by the applicant and agreed to by the FAA must be made a part of the operating limitations. (3) In the case of an aircraft located at any airport surrounded by a densely populated area and lacking any acceptable approach/departure route of flight, the FAA must deny the airworthiness certificate; the FAA must write a letter to the applicant stating the reason(s) for denying the proposed flight test area. The applicant must be advised to relocate the aircraft to an airport suitable for flight testing. Note: An acceptable approach/departure route of flight may be considered to exist when the route of flight provides a reasonable opportunity to execute an off-airport emergency landing that will not jeopardize other persons or property. 5. Operating Limitations. Operating limitations must be designed to fit the specific situation and the specific objectives of the special airworthiness certificate under a. The ASI must review each imposed operating limitation with the applicant to ensure the applicant has a clear understanding of intent. Appendix A to this order provides sample operating limitations that must be prescribed for an experimental certificate, as applicable. Operating limitations must be coordinated either by, or through, AIR-200. b. Operating limitations can vary greatly from one UAS to the next based on system requirements and operating location. The ASI may impose any additional limitations deemed necessary in the interest of safety. NCRSASL - 125

136 10/27/ A Section 3. Certification and Operation of Optionally Piloted Aircraft. 1. Manned Aircraft. Current UAS technology development projects include modifying manned aircraft. Today s advanced technology in control systems and software permits modifications to traditional flight controls that enable command of the aircraft to be affected from outside the cockpit. Control can be affected through a data link or preprogrammed into the aircraft s autopilot/flight management system. Two methods are described below. If other methods of controls exist, the FAA will evaluate their effectiveness and conduct a system safety assessment. a. For aircraft integrated with data link equipment and flown with a safety pilot onboard, remote control of the aircraft may be engaged or disengaged by the safety pilot. Once the system controls are engaged, the aircraft is controlled by a pilot operating the ground control station. Whether the system control is engaged or not, the pilot in command will always be the pilot sitting in the aircraft. b. The second method of control is by modifying the flight management system to permit flight plan programming before takeoff. Once engaged, the flight management system initiates the takeoff sequence, flies selected way points, and lands the aircraft without pilot intervention. This method includes a data link which can change way-points in flight from commands sent by a control station external to the aircraft in the event of a change of plans or emergency. 2. Safety Pilot. Both of the above mentioned capabilities include an onboard safety pilot for the purpose of overriding the system in the case of malfunction or any other hazardous situation. Ultimately, plans may include further research and development and removal of the safety pilot from the aircraft. If the aircraft is operated without a safety pilot, it is considered a UA. 3. Certification Process. All traditional manned aircraft are eligible for consideration. When an applicant presents an OPA, the certification process used is similar to manned aircraft with the following exceptions. a. The FAA UAS experimental certification team will conduct a safety evaluation based on the procedures established in chapter 3, section 1, of this order. b. Operating limitations as described in Order will be issued by the manufacturing ASI. The Sample OPA Operating Limitations included in appendix B will be included, as necessary, in addition to those required by Order NCRSASL - 126

137 Appendix A. Sample Operating Limitations Experimental: Research and Development, Market Survey, and/or Crew Training 800 Independence Ave, S.W. Washington, D.C Operating Limitations Experimental: Research and Development, Market Survey, and/or Crew Training Registered Owner Name: [Insert Owner Name] Registered Owner Address: [Insert Address] Aircraft Description: [Insert Description] Aircraft Registration: [Insert Registration Number] Aircraft Builder: [Insert Builder Name] Year Manufactured: [Insert Year] Aircraft Serial Number: [Insert Serial Number] Aircraft Model Designation: [Insert Model Designation] Engine Model: [Insert Model Designation] The following conditions and limitations apply to all unmanned aircraft system (UAS) flight operations for the (name and model of UAS) while operating in the National Airspace System (NAS). 1. General Information. a. Integrated System. For the purposes of this special airworthiness certificate and operating limitations, the (name and model of UAS) operated by (individual or company name) is considered to be an integrated system. The system is composed of the following: (1) Name and model of the aircraft. (2) Serial number. NCRSASL - 127

138 (3) UAS control station(s), that is, fixed, mobile, ground-based, or airborne. (4) Telemetry, launch, and recovery equipment. (5) Communications and navigation equipment, including ground and/or air equipment used for command and control of the (name and model of UAS). (6) Equipment on the ground and in the air used for communication with the chase aircraft, other members of the flightcrew, observers, air traffic control (ATC), and other users of the NAS. b. Compliance with 14 CFR Part 61 (Certification: Pilots, Flight Instructors, and Ground Instructors) and Part 91 (General Operating and Flight Rules). Unless otherwise specified in this document, the UA pilot-in-command (PIC) and (applicant name) must comply with all applicable sections and parts of 14 CFR including, but not limited to, parts 61 and 91. c. Operational Requirements. (1) No person may operate this UAS for other than the purpose of research and development, market survey, and/or crew training, to accomplish the flight operation outlined in (applicant s name) program letter dated (include date), which describes compliance with (d), Experimental certificates: General, and has been made available to the UA PIC. (2) This UAS must be operated in accordance with applicable air traffic and general operating rules of part 91 and all additional limitations herein prescribed under the provisions of (i), Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating limitations. (3) (Applicant name) must accumulate at least 50 flight hours under its experimental airworthiness certificate before customer crew training is permitted, in accordance with (d), Experimental certificates: Aircraft to be used for market surveys, sales demonstrations, and customer crew training. d. UA Condition. The UA PIC must determine that the UA is in a condition for safe operation, and in a configuration appropriate for the purpose of the intended flight. e. Multiple-Purpose Operations. When changing between operating purposes of a multiple purpose certificate, the operator must determine that the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation and appropriate for the purpose intended. A record entry will be made by an appropriately rated person (that is, an individual authorized by the applicant and acceptable to the FAA) to document that finding in the maintenance records. f. Operation Exceptions. No person may operate this UA to carry property for compensation or hire ( (a)(2)). NCRSASL - 128

139 g. UA Markings. (1) This UA must be marked with its U.S. registration number in accordance with part 45 or alternative marking approval issued by the FAA Production and Airworthiness Division (AIR-200). (2) This UA must display the word Experimental in accordance with 45.23(b), Display of marks, unless otherwise granted an exemption from this requirement. h. Required Documentation. Immediately after the certificate is issued, (applicant name) must forward an electronic copy of the (name and model of UAS) program letter, special airworthiness certificate, and operating limitations to the (title of the appropriate FAA Air Traffic Organization (ATO) facility(ies)). The documents must be sent to the attention of (name), (title of ATO person), at ( address), or via fax at (fax number). AIR-200 will be included on this transmission i. Change in Registrant Address. Section 47.45, Change of address, requires that the FAA Aircraft Registry be notified within 30 days of any change in the aircraft registrant s address. Such notification is to be made by providing AC Form , Aircraft Registration Application, to the FAA Aircraft Registration Branch (AFS-750) in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. j. Certificate Display and Manual Availability. The airworthiness and registration certificates must be displayed, and the aircraft flight manual must be available to the pilot, as prescribed by the applicable sections of 14 CFR, or as prescribed by an exemption granted in accordance with 14 CFR part 11, General Rulemaking Procedures. 2. Program Letter. The (name and model of UAS) program letter, dated (insert date), will be used as a basis for determining the operating limitations prescribed in this document. All flight operations must be conducted in accordance with the provisions of this document. 3. Initial Flight Testing. a. Requirements. Flight operations must be conducted within visual line of sight of the pilot/observer. Initial flight testing must be completed upon accumulation of (TBD) flight hours. Following satisfactory completion of initial flight testing, the operations manager or chief pilot must certify in the records that the aircraft has been shown to comply with (b). Compliance with (b) must be recorded in the aircraft records with the following, or a similarly worded, statement: I certify that the prescribed flight test hours have been completed and the aircraft is controllable throughout its normal range of speeds and throughout all maneuvers to be executed, has no hazardous operating characteristics or design features, and is safe for operation. The following aircraft operating data has been demonstrated during the flight testing: speeds Vx, and Vy, and the weight and CG location at which they were obtained. NCRSASL - 129

140 b. Aircraft Operations for the Purpose of Market Surveys, Sales Demonstrations, and Customer Crew Training. These operations cannot be performed until 50 flight hours have been accomplished. An entry in the maintenance records is required as evidence of compliance. 4. Authorized Flight Operations Area. a. Description of the Authorized Flight Operations Area. This must include latitude and longitude and altitude dimensions, a map of the proposed flight operations area, and the base of operations for the UAS. (Applicant must provide appropriate graphics for insertion here.) b. Flight Test Area. The flight operations area authorized for the UA will be referred to as the flight test area, and is depicted graphically below. c. Authorized Flight Times and Conditions. All flight operations must be conducted during daylight hours under visual flight rules (VFR). d. Criteria for Remaining in the Flight Test Area. The UAS PIC must ensure all UA flight operations remain within the lateral and vertical boundaries of the flight test area. Furthermore, the UAS PIC must take into account all factors that may affect the capability of the UA to remain within the flight test area. This includes, but is not limited to, considerations for wind, gross weight, and glide distances. e. Incident/Accident Reporting. Any incident/accident and any flight operation that transgresses the lateral or vertical boundaries of the flight test area or any restricted airspace must be reported to the FAA within 24 hours. This information must be reported to the Unmanned Aircraft Program Office, AFS-407. AFS-407 can be reached by telephone at and fax at Accidents must be reported to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) per instructions contained on the NTSB website: Further flight operations must not be conducted until the incident is reviewed by AFS-407 and authorization to resume operations is provided to (applicant name). 5. UA Pilots and Observers. a. UA PIC Roles and Responsibilities. (1) The UA PIC must perform crew duties for only one UA at a time. (2) All flight operations must have a designated UA PIC. The UA PIC has responsibility over each flight conducted and is accountable for the UA flight operation. (3) The UA PIC is responsible for the safety of the UA as well as persons and property along the UA flight path. This includes, but is not limited to, collision avoidance and the safety of persons and property in the air and on the ground. (4) The UA PIC must avoid densely populated areas ( ) and exercise increased vigilance when operating within or in the vicinity of published airway boundaries. NCRSASL - 130

141 b. UA PIC Certification and Ratings Requirements. (1) The UA PIC must hold and be in possession of, at a minimum, an FAA private pilot certificate, with either an airplane, rotorcraft, or powered-lift category; and single- or multiengine class ratings, or the military equivalent, appropriate to the type of UA being operated. (2) The UA PIC must have and be in possession of a valid second-class (or higher) airman medical certificate issued under 14 CFR part 67, Medical Standards and Certification. c. UA PIC Currency, Flight Review, and Training. (1) The UA PIC must maintain currency in manned aircraft in accordance with 61.57, Recent flight experience: Pilot in command. (2) The UA PIC must have a flight review in manned aircraft every 24 calendar months in accordance with 61.56, Flight review. (3) The UA PIC must maintain currency in unmanned aircraft in accordance with (applicant name) company procedures. (4) The UA PIC must have a flight review in unmanned aircraft every 24 calendar months in accordance with (company name) procedures. (5) All UA PICs must have successfully completed applicable (applicant name) training for the UAS. d. Supplemental UA Pilot Roles and Responsibilities. (1) Any additional UA pilot(s) assigned to a crew station during UA flight operations will be considered a supplemental UA pilot. (2) A supplemental UA pilot assists the PIC in the operation of the UA and may do so at the same or a different control station as the PIC. The UA PIC will have operational override capability over any supplemental UA pilots, regardless of position. (3) A supplemental UA pilot must perform crew duties for only one UA at a time. e. Supplemental UA Pilot Certification. The supplemental UA PIC need not be a certificated pilot, but must have successfully completed a recognized private pilot ground school program. f. Supplemental UA Pilot Currency, Flight Review, and Training. (1) All UA pilots must maintain currency in unmanned aircraft in accordance with (applicant name) company procedures. (2) All UA pilots must have a flight review in unmanned aircraft every 24 calendar months in accordance with (company name) procedures. NCRSASL - 131

142 (3) All UA pilots must have successfully completed applicable (applicant name) training for the UAS. g. Observer Roles and Responsibilities. The task of the observer is to provide the UA PIC(s) with instructions to maneuver the UA clear of any potential collision with other traffic. To satisfy these requirements (1) The observer must perform crew duties for only one UA at a time. (2) At no time will the observer permit the UA to operate beyond the line-of-sight necessary to ensure maneuvering information can be reliably determined. (3) At no time will the observer conduct his/her duties more than (TBD) laterally or (TBD) vertically from the UA. (4) An observer must maintain continuous visual contact with the UA to discern UA attitude and trajectory in relation to conflicting traffic. (5) An observer may be positioned in a chase aircraft. When a chase aircraft is used, it must maintain a reasonable proximity, and must position itself relative to the UA to reduce the hazard of collision in accordance with , Operating near other aircraft. When the observer is located in a chase aircraft, the observer s duties must be dedicated to the task of observation only. Concurrent duty as pilot of the chase aircraft is not authorized. (6) Observers must continually scan the airspace for other aircraft that pose a potential conflict. (7) All flight operations conducted in the flight test area must have an observer to perform traffic avoidance and visual observation to fulfill the see-and-avoid requirement of , Right-of-way rules: Except water operations. h. Observer Certification. (1) All observers must either hold, at a minimum, an FAA private pilot license or military equivalent, or must have successfully completed specific observer training acceptable to the FAA. An observer does not require currency as a pilot. (2) All observers must have in their possession a valid second-class (or higher) airman medical certificate issued under part 67. i. Observer training. (1) All observers must be thoroughly trained, be familiar with, and possess operational experience with the equipment being used. Such training is necessary for observation and detection of other aircraft for collision avoidance purposes as outlined in (applicant name) program letter. NCRSASL - 132

143 (2) All observers must have successfully completed applicable (applicant name) training for the UAS. 6. Equipage. a. The UAS must be equipped with an operable transponder with Mode C or Mode S, and two-way communications equipment allowing communications between the UA pilot, chase aircraft, observers, all UAS control stations, and ATC. b. The UA and chase aircraft must be equipped with operable navigation, position, and/or strobe/anti-collision lights. Strobe/anti-collision lights must be illuminated during all operations. 7. Communications. a. Before UA Flights. (1) Before conducting operations, the frequency spectrum used for operation and control of the UA must be approved by the Federal Communications Commission or other appropriate government oversight agency. (2) At least 2 hours before each UA flight, (applicant name) must contact the (FAA name) Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) (identify specific ARTCC), Milsap Low Sector at (phone number), to obtain a transponder code (if so equipped). Upon initial contact with ATC, the UA PIC must indicate the experimental nature in accordance with b. During UA Flights. (1) Appropriate air traffic frequencies must be monitored during flight operations. (2) All UA positions must maintain two-way communications with each other during all operations. If unable to maintain two-way communication, the UA PIC will expeditiously return the UA to its base of operations while remaining within the flight test area and conclude the flight operation. 8. Flight Conditions. a. Daylight Operations. All flight operations must be conducted during daylight hours in visual meteorological conditions (VMC), including cloud clearance minimums as specified in , Basic VFR weather minimums. Flight operation in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) is not permitted. NCRSASL - 133

144 b. Prohibitions. (1) The UA is prohibited from aerobatic flight, that is, an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in the UA s attitude, an abnormal acceleration, or other flight action not necessary for normal flight. (See , Aerobatic flight.) If aerobatic flight is anticipated, it must be thoroughly discussed during the system review and be appropriately described in the operating limitations. (2) Flight operations must not involve carrying hazardous material or the dropping of any objects or external stores. (3) Each UA must be operated by only one control station at a time. A control station may not be used to operate multiple UAs. c. Transponder Requirements. (1) The UA must operate a TSO approved Mode C or Mode S altitude encoding transponder during all flight operations. The transponder must be FAA TSO-C 74d or TSO-C112c approved. It must be identified by the applicable TSO marking. If the transponder is Mode S-capable, it must have an appropriately assigned International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) 24-bit address based on the UAS s assigned registration number. (2) Chase aircraft transponders must be on standby while performing chase operations flight with the UA. d. Transponder Failure. (1) In the event of transponder failure on either the UA or the chase aircraft, the UA must conclude all flight operations and expeditiously return to its base of operations within the prescribed limitations of this authorization. (2) In the event of UA transponder failure, a chase aircraft will operate its transponder in Mode C. e. Notice to Airman. (Applicant name) must request the issuance of a Notice to Airman (NOTAM) through the (FAA name) Automated Flight Service Station at least 24 hours before flight operation. 9. Flight Termination and Lost Link Procedures. a. Flight Termination. In accordance with (applicant name) program letter, dated (date), flight termination must be initiated at any point that safe operation of the UA cannot be maintained or if hazard to persons or property is imminent. b. Lost Link Procedures. In the event of lost link, the UA must provide a means of automatic recovery that ensures airborne operations are predictable and that the UA remains within the flight test area. The chase aircraft or observer, all other UAS control stations, and the NCRSASL - 134

145 appropriate ATC facility must be immediately notified of the lost link condition and the expected UA response. 10. Inspection and Maintenance. a. General Requirements. The UAS must not be operated unless it is inspected and maintained in accordance with the (applicant name and name of procedures), (State applicable sections and effective date) or later accepted FAA revision. (Applicant name) must establish and maintain aircraft maintenance records (see paragraph 10d below). b. Inspections. No person may operate this UAS within the preceding 12 calendar months unless it has had a condition inspection performed according to the FAA-accepted (applicant name) Inspection and Maintenance Program. The UAS must also have been found to be in a condition for safe operation. This inspection will be recorded in the UAS maintenance records as described in paragraph 10d below. c. Authorized Inspectors. Only those individuals trained and authorized by (applicant name) and acceptable to the FAA may perform the inspections and maintenance required by these operating limitations. d. Inspection and Maintenance Records. Inspections and maintenance of the UAS must be recorded in the UAS maintenance records. The following information must be recorded: (1) Inspection entries must contain the following, or a similarly worded, statement: I certify that this UAS was inspected on (date), in accordance with the scope and detail of the (applicant name) Inspection and Maintenance Program, and was found to be in a condition for safe operation. (2) Maintenance record entries must include a description of the work performed, the date of completion for the work, the UAS s total time-in-service, and the name and signature of the person performing the work. (3) UAS instruments and equipment required to be installed must be inspected and maintained in accordance with the requirements of the (applicant name) Inspection and Maintenance Program. Any maintenance or inspection of this equipment must be recorded in the UAS maintenance records. (4) No person may operate this UAS unless the altimeter system and transponder have been tested within the preceding 24 calendar months in accordance with , Altimeter system and altitude reporting equipment tests and inspections, and , ATC transponder tests and inspections. These inspections will be recorded in the UAS maintenance records. 11. Information Reporting. (Insert company name) will provide the following information to (insert name and contact information) on a monthly basis. (Contact name and information must be provided at the time the certificate is issued.) a. Number of flights conducted under this certificate. NCRSASL - 135

146 b. Pilot duty time per flight. c. Unusual equipment malfunctions (hardware or software). d. Deviations from ATC instructions. e. Unintended entry into lost link flight mode that results in a course change. 12. Revisions and Other Provisions. a. Experimental Certificates, Program Letters, and Operating Limitations. The experimental certificate, FAA-accepted (applicant name) program letter, and operating limitations cannot be reissued, renewed, or revised without application being made to the (manufacturing inspection district office (MIDO) name), in coordination with AIR-200. AIR-200 will be responsible for FAA Headquarters internal coordination with the Aircraft Certification Service, Flight Standards Service, Air Traffic Organization, Office of the Chief Council, and Office of Rulemaking. b. Certificates of Waiver or Authorization. (Applicant name) will immediately notify the Production and Airworthiness Division, AIR-200, and the (manufacturing inspection district office (MIDO) name), if there is any plan for requesting a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) for UAS operations during the time the experimental certificate is in effect. An entry in the aircraft logbook is required to document that the aircraft flight authority has been changed from the experimental certificate to COA. When COA operations are concluded and the aircraft resumes flying under the experimental certificate, a record entry will be made in the aircraft logbook by an appropriately rated person. This entry will document that the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation and appropriately configured. c. Amendments and Cancellations. The provisions and limitations annotated in this operational approval may be amended or cancelled at any time as deemed necessary by the FAA. d. Reviews of Revisions. All revisions to (applicant name) FAA-accepted Inspection and Maintenance Program must be reviewed and accepted by the (flight standards district office (FSDO) name. 13. UAS Modifications. a. Software and System Changes. All software and system changes will be documented as part of the normal maintenance procedures and will be available for inspection. All software and system changes must be inspected and approved per (applicant name) maintenance program dated (insert date). All software changes to the aircraft and control station are categorized as major changes, and must be provided in summary form at the time they are incorporated. b. Major Modifications. All major modifications, whether performed under the experimental certificate, COA, or other authorizations, that could potentially affect the safe operation of the system, must be documented and provided to the FAA before operating the aircraft under this certificate. Major modifications incorporated under COA or other authorization need to be provided only if the aircraft is flown under these authorizations during the effective period of the experimental certificate. NCRSASL - 136

147 10/27/ A Appendix A c. Submission of Modifications. All information requested must be provided to AIR-200. End of Limitations. /s/ (Name) Aviation Safety Inspector (Name of MIDO) (Issuing office address) (City, State Zip Code) Date: I certify that I have read and understand the operating limitations and conditions that are a part of the special airworthiness certificate, FAA Form , issued on (date), for the purposes of [research and development, market survey, and/or crew training, (enter as applicable)]. This special airworthiness certificate is issued for (name and model of UAS), serial number (xxx), registration number (xxx). Applicant (signature) Date: Name (Printed): Title: Company: A-11 NCRSASL - 137

148 Appendix B. Sample Operating Limitations for Optionally Piloted Aircraft 1. Applicability. The following limitations apply only to optionally piloted aircraft (OPA) and will be issued to supplement operating limitations issued under an experimental certificate as described in FAA Order , Airworthiness Certification of Aircraft and Related Products. The aviation safety inspector (ASI) may include these limitations as an addendum to, or amend directly into, operating limitations issued under Order When an OPA is operated without a pilot onboard, operating limitations for UAS will be issued in accordance with the procedures described in this order. 2. OPA Limitations. a. The aircraft will be operated with a pilot onboard at all times. UAS operations without a pilot onboard are not authorized except in restricted airspace and with the permission of the agency using that airspace. The pilot onboard is considered to be the pilot in command (PIC). b. The PIC will hold, at a minimum, an FAA private pilot certificate. Additionally, the PIC will hold, at a minimum, a valid FAA Class 2 medical certificate and have it in his/her possession. c. The PIC will have the ability to immediately override any installed system that can be operated remotely or by automation. d. The system will not impede the pilot from overriding or otherwise controlling the aircraft using normal control input forces. e. There may be no specific geographic limitation when the aircraft is being operated as a traditional aircraft unless otherwise specified in the operating limitations. f. The identified flight test area is approved for the (applicant name) to conduct operations using the system: (1) As described in section (annotate section/paragraph of operating limitations), the (list applicant or aircraft name or registration number) is restricted to the identified flight test area for an initial period of no less than 10 flight hours and a minimum of 5 takeoff and landings (may be modified, as required). (2) After satisfying the initial limitation described above, there is no further geographic limitation. g. Any changes or requests for additional flight test areas must be reviewed and approved by AFS-407, AIR-200, and the responsible manufacturing inspection district office (MIDO). h. Control of the aircraft by any method other than the onboard pilot (that is, uplinks and uploaded commands to the aircraft) can only be initiated while the aircraft is in the flight test area specified in paragraph f above. Downlink of telemetry data is usually not restricted unless limited by the FCC or another agency. NCRSASL - 138

149 10/27/ A Appendix B i. The system may only be engaged or used while the aircraft is at or above XXXX feet above ground level (AGL). The system must be turned off or otherwise rendered inoperative below XXXX feet AGL. j. The system may only be engaged or used during daylight hours only and in visual meteorological conditions (VMC) under visual flight rules (VFR). The system is not authorized for use under special VFR, in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC), or under instrument flight rules (IFR). k. The system is not authorized for use during takeoff or landing. l. Operations under direct control or indirect control will be authorized on a case-by-case basis as determined by the FAA team. m. The system will not be operated over congested areas, heavily trafficked roads, or an open-air assembly of persons. End of Limitations. B-2 NCRSASL - 139

150 Appendix C. Sample Program Letter for Unmanned Aircraft Systems or Optionally Piloted Aircraft for an Experimental Certificate Registered Owner Name: [Enter Owner Name] Registered Owner Address: [Enter Owner Address] Aircraft Description: [Enter Description] Aircraft Registration: [Enter Registration Number] Aircraft Builder: [Enter Builder Name] Year Manufactured: [Enter Year] Aircraft Serial Number: [Enter Serial Number] Aircraft Model Designation: [Enter Model Designation] Engine Model: [Enter Model Designation] Propeller Model: [Enter Model Designation] 1. Overview of Project. The applicant must provide a general explanation and overview of the project, indicating any past flight history or experience for consideration. The applicant must provide enough detail for the FAA to understand the program s purpose and need for an experimental certificate for a UAS or OPA, including the following: a. Definition of the Experimental Purpose. Provide a definition of the experimental purpose(s) under which the aircraft is to be operated (14 CFR , Experimental certificates). b. Description of the Purpose/Scope of the Experimental Program. Provide a description of the purpose/scope of the experimental program for each experimental purpose sought ( (b) and (d), Experimental certificates: General). 2. Definition of Flight Areas. Provide a definition of the area(s) in which the experimental flights will be conducted, including the following: a. The areas over which the flights are requested to be conducted and the address of base operation ( (d)(3)). NCRSASL - 140

151 b. The proposed flight test area using latitude and longitude on an aeronautical chart or aerial photograph. For example, if the perimeter of the proposed flight test area is in the shape of a rectangle, the latitude and longitude of the corners must be stated. The distance of each leg of the perimeter must be stated. c. Airspeed, altitude, number of flight hours, number of flights, and program duration for each test flight area. d. Class of airspace to be used. e. Whether minimum fuel requirements of 14 CFR , Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions, will be met. f. Whether flight testing will include payload testing, if the operation is for flight testing. g. Considerations that need to be taken into account regarding payloads. h. Whether the aircraft will perform any aerobatic maneuvers. i. Flight conditions, for example, VFR and visual meteorological conditions (VMC). 3. Aircraft Configuration. Attach three-view drawings or three-view dimensioned photographs of the aircraft (see (b)(4)). Describe UAS configuration, including the control station. Include a description of aircraft/system performance characteristics including the following: a. Wing span. b. Length. c. Powerplant. d. Maximum gross takeoff weight. e. Fuel capacity. f. Payload capacity. g. Maximum altitude. h. Endurance. i. Maximum airspeed. j. Control/data frequencies. k. Guidance and navigation control. NCRSASL - 141

152 4. Inspection and Maintenance Part 91, (General Operating and Flight Rules) Subpart E, (Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, and Alterations). a. Description of the Program. Describe the inspection and maintenance program that will be used to maintain the aircraft and related systems, including ground stations and/or other support systems. b. Required Documentation. Provide a copy of the flight manual, if applicable; current weight and balance report; and equipment list. 5. Pilot Qualification (14 CFR 61.3, Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations, and 61.5, Certificates and ratings issued under this part). a. Pilot Qualifications. Describe the qualifications for each pilot. b. Pilot Certifications. Pilots must be qualified/certificated in the appropriate category of aircraft, that is, rotorcraft, powered lift, and airplane. c. Pilot Training. Describe the internal training program to qualify pilots. d. Qualifications and Training of Observers. Describe the qualifications and training of observers. Observer training is required for observers to communicate to the pilot any instructions required to remain clear of conflicting traffic. Acceptable observer training as a minimum must include, but is not limited to, knowledge about the following (1) The rules and responsibilities described in (Operating near other aircraft), (Right-of-way rules: Except water operations), and (Basic VFR weather minimums); (2) Air traffic and radio communications, including the use of approved ATC/pilot phraseology; and (3) Appropriate sections of the Aeronautical Information Manual. 6. Aircraft Registration and Identification Marking (14 CFR Part 45). All UAS are required to be registered and identified with the registration number. Aircraft must be marked in accordance with part 45 or alternative marking approval issued by AIR ATC Transponder and Altitude Reporting System Equipment and Use ( , ATC transponder and altitude reporting equipment and use). Describe the aircraft altitude reporting system. 8. Method for See-and-Avoid ( ). Describe in what manner, or by what means, the requirement to see-and-avoid other aircraft will be met. Describe the expected performance of the chase plane. NCRSASL - 142

153 10/27/ A Appendix C 9. Safety Risk Management. Provide a safety checklist that identifies and analyzes the hazards of UAS operations described in the program letter. (See a sample safety checklist in appendix D to this order.) Additional information is available by contacting the FAA Aviation Safety Inspector. 10. System Configuration. Provide a description of the aircraft system configuration and all onboard and ground-based equipment. 11. System Safety Flight Termination and Lost Link. Describe/explain the expectation of aircraft flight if fuel is starved. Describe/explain aircraft lost link and emergency recovery procedures. Provide an explanation of the flight termination system in detail. 12. Command and Control. Provide a description of the system and/or procedures for command and control of the UAS. 13. Control Stations. Provide a description of the ground/airborne stations used to control the UAS. 14. Control Frequencies. Provide a description/listing of the frequencies used to control the UAS. C-4 NCRSASL - 143

154 Appendix D: Safety Checklist 1. Introduction. The safety checklist is designed to help the FAA evaluate those hazards that are unique to UAS or OPA in support of issuing an experimental certificate. Some safety items only require brief responses and others may not be applicable to a specific program. Additional questions and supporting documentation will be required during the evaluation process. The safety checklist replaces any previous requirement for a hazard analysis. The FAA intends to update the safety checklist as we gain more experience. The current version of this document will be posted on the FAAWeb Site, search key word UAS. 2. Aircraft Segment. a. Airframe. (1) Structure. Describe in detail the physical characteristics of the UA. Include diagrams and schematics, as necessary. (2) Composition. Describe the various materials and where they are used in the construction of the UA. Include details of the fabrication and construction processes and procedures. (3) Describe the capability of the airframe structure to withstand expected flight loads and provide data/analysis to show that it is flutter-free throughout the flight envelope. Include any loads or stress analysis that demonstrates positive structural margins of safety during flight. (4) Identify and describe any unique design characteristic(s) such as a hydraulic system, environmental control system, parachute, or brakes. (5) Measurements. (a) Wingspan. (b) Fuselage length. (c) Body diameter. (6) Weight. (a) Empty. (b) Maximum gross takeoff weight. b. UA Performance Characteristics. Describe the performance of the aircraft within the proposed flight envelope. Specifically, address the following items: (1) Maximum altitude. (2) Maximum endurance. NCRSASL - 144

155 (3) Maximum range. (4) Airspeed. (a) Cruise. (b) Maximum. (5) Maximum rate of climb. (6) Maximum rate of descent. (7) Maximum bank angle. (8) Turn rate limits. (9) Identify any performance limitations due to environmental and meteorological conditions. Specifically, address the following items: (a) Wind speed limitations. i. Headwind. ii. Crosswind. iii. Gusts. (b) Minimum visibility conditions. (c) Lighting (for example, daytime flights only). (d) Outside air temperature (OAT) limits. (e) In-flight icing. conditions? i. Does the proposed operating environment include operations in icing ii. Does the system have an icing detection capability? If so, what indications, if any, does the system provide the UA pilot, and how does the system respond? iii. Describe any icing protection capability of the UA. Include any test data that demonstrates the performance of the icing protection system. c. Propulsion System. (1) Describe the propulsion system and its ability to provide reliable and sufficient power to takeoff, climb, and maintain flight at expected mission altitudes. NCRSASL - 145

156 (2) Fuel-powered propulsion systems. (a) What type (make and model) of engine is used? (b) What type and capacity of fuel is used? (c) How is engine performance monitored? What status indicators and warning messages are provided to the pilot? (d) Describe all potential failure modes and abnormal operating conditions. (e) How does the system respond, and what safeguards are in place to mitigate the risk of engine power loss for each of the following? i. Fuel starvation. ii. Fuel contamination. iii. Failed signal input from the control station. iv. Engine controller failure. (f) Does the engine have in-flight restart capabilities? If so, describe the manual and/or automatic features of this capability. (3) Electric-powered propulsion systems. (a) What type of motor is used? (b) What is the power output of the motor? (c) What current draw range does the motor have? managed? (d) Does the system have a separate electrical source? If not, how is UA power d. Fuel System. Describe the fuel system and how it allows for adequate control of the fuel delivery to the engine, and provides for aircrew determination of fuel remaining. Provide a system level diagram showing the location of the system in the aircraft and the fuel flow path. e. Electrical System. (1) Describe the electrical system and how it distributes adequate power to meet the requirements of the receiving systems. Provide a system level diagram showing electrical power distribution throughout the aircraft. Specifically, address the following items: (2) How is power generated onboard the aircraft (for example, generator, alternator, batteries)? NCRSASL - 146

157 (a) If a limited life power source such as batteries is used, what is the useful life of the power source during normal and emergency conditions? How was this determined? the pilot? (b) How are electrical power status and power remaining information displayed to (3) Describe the source(s) of backup power in the event of loss of the primary power source. (a) What systems are powered during backup power operation? (b) Is there any automatic or manual load shedding? (c) How much operational time does the backup power source provide? Include the assumptions used to make this determination. (4) Describe the electrical distribution architecture including all busses, regulators, switches, and converters. f. Flight Control Surfaces and Actuators. (1) Describe the design and operation of the flight control surfaces and servos/actuators. Include a diagram showing the location of the control surfaces and servos/actuators. (2) Describe any potential failure modes and corresponding mitigations. (3) How does the system respond to a servo failure? (4) What indications alert the pilot that a servo is stuck or malfunctioning? g. Payloads. Describe the payload equipment that will fly onboard the aircraft. Describe all payload configurations that significantly change weight and balance, electrical loads, or flight dynamics. (1) Internal. (2) External. 3. Control and Communications Segment. a. Avionics. Provide an overall system diagram of the avionics architecture. Include the location of all air data sensors, antennas, radios, and navigation equipment. b. Navigation. (1) How does the UA determine where it is? How does it navigate to its intended destination? NCRSASL - 147

158 (2) How does the pilot respond to the following directions from Air Traffic Control, a visual observer, or other crew member? (a) Change of aircraft heading. (b) Change of aircraft altitude. (3) What are the causes and effects of loss of heading or altitude? (4) How does the system identify and respond to a loss of the primary means of navigation? Is there a backup means of navigation? How does the system respond to a loss of the secondary means of navigation? (5) Describe the procedures to test the altimeter system (see ). c. UA Controls. (1) Describe how the control surfaces respond to commands from the flight control computer. (2) Describe how the pilot provides input to the control surfaces (for example, through an external box, waypoint, stick, and rudder pedals). (3) Flight control computer. (a) Does the flight control computer interface with auxiliary controls that might cause an unintended action? (b) Describe the flight control computer interfaces required to determine flight status and to issue appropriate commands. d. Autopilot. (1) How was the autopilot system developed? What industry or regulatory standards were used in the development process? (2) Is the autopilot a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) product? If so, name the type/manufacturer. (3) Describe the procedures you use to install the autopilot. How is correct installation verified? Reference any documents or procedures provided by the manufacturer and/or developed by your company. (4) Does the autopilot employ input limit parameters to keep the aircraft within structural limits? If so, provide a table of these limits. How were these limits validated? (5) Where do the autopilot commands reside once they are input by the pilot? NCRSASL - 148

159 (6) What type of software-in-the-loop (SIL) and hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) simulations have been performed? What was the outcome of the simulations? e. Communications. (1) Provide a detailed communication system architecture diagram that includes functional flows and subsystem performance (that is, data rates and latencies). (2) Describe the communications datalink(s) connecting the UA and the control station. Specifically address the following items: (a) What spectrum will be used for the communications and how has the use of this spectrum been coordinated? If spectrum approval is not required, under what regulation is the use of the frequency authorized? (b) What type of signal processing and/or link security (that is, encryption) is employed? (c) What is the data link margin in terms of the overall link budget at the maximum anticipated distance from the control station? How was it determined? (d) Is there a radio signal strength and/or health indicator or similar display to the pilot? How is the signal strength and health value determined and what are the threshold values that represent a critically degraded signal? (e) Does the system employ redundant and/or independent communications links? If so, how dissimilar are they? (f) For satellite links, estimate the system communications latencies associated with using the satellite link for aircraft control and for air traffic control (ATC) communications. (g) What are the potential sources of radio frequency (RF) interference within the proposed operating area and how are they monitored, managed and/or mitigated? (3) What design characteristics or procedures are in place to prevent or mitigate the loss of the control datalink due to the following: (a) RF or other interference? (b) Flight beyond communications range? (c) Antenna masking during turns and pitch angles? (d) Loss of control station functionality? (e) Loss of UA functionality? (f) Atmospheric attenuation including precipitation? NCRSASL - 149

160 f. Lost Link and Flight Recovery. (1) Lost link. (a) How is it determined that the UA is experiencing lost link and how is this displayed to the pilot? (b) Describe the operational procedures in the event of a lost link. (c) Describe how the aircraft will react during takeoff, climb, cruise, descent, and landing in the event of a lost link. (d) How is it determined that the lost link functionality of the system is operational? (e) How does the UA navigate when in the lost link mode? (f) What parameters are used to define the lost link or return home point? How is this point selected? How is this point entered? What happens when the UA reaches this point? activated? (g) Under what conditions is a return home mode both manually and automatically (h) What do the control station displays indicate during lost link? Is it clear that the data is stale or invalid? (2) Flight recovery system (FRS). (a) Describe the FRS or flight recovery capability of the UA. (b) Under what conditions is an FRS manually and automatically activated? (c) What happens to the aircraft when the FRS is activated? For example, does the engine run temporarily? Does the UA glide or become unstable? (d) How do you know that the FRS is operational? (e) Provide a fault tree diagram, starting with the initial condition of normal flight that shows the conditions which will trigger the FRS. (f) If activated, can the FRS be turned off/shut down if no longer required? (g) If FRS fails, is there a backup or secondary FRS to ensure that no additional hazards are introduced to the operational area? NCRSASL - 150

161 g. Control Station. (1) Describe or diagram the control station configuration, including functional flows. Include screen captures of the control station displays. flight? (2) Does the pilot have a standardized screen set up at the initiation of each phase of (3) How accurately can the pilot determine the attitude and position of the UA? (4) What commands are safeguarded from inadvertent activation and how is that achieved (for example, a two step process to command kill engine )? (5) What kind of inadvertent input could the pilot enter to cause an undesirable outcome (for example, accidentally hitting the kill engine command in flight)? (6) Are any other programs running on the ground control computer? (7) What are the possible conditions that would cause a control position lock-up? (8) Are any of the primary flight controls based on the Windows operating system? (9) What alarms or warnings does the system provide to the pilot (for example, low fuel or battery, failure of critical systems, departure from operational boundary)? (10) Describe the means of providing primary and backup power to the ground control station. (11) What procedures are in place should the control station lose primary and secondary power? 4. Ground Support Equipment. Describe all the support equipment that is used on the ground. Include any launch or recovery systems, ground data terminals, generators, and power supplies. 5. Processes and Procedures. a. Configuration Management. (1) What procedures are in place to manage change configuration? Is it documented? (2) Describe the procedures used for controlling drawings, test procedures, engineering changes, etc. (3) Describe the quality assurance system, methods and procedures used, and structure within the organization. NCRSASL - 151

162 b. Software Management. (1) In high-level terms, how much of the software was designed by the applicant? Identify which areas of the system contain vendor software. (2) What software development process(es) have been used in the development of software components for the aircraft and the ground control station, and what software lifecycle data is available for review? (3) How will updates to system software (including COTS software) be implemented? (4) Provide a description of the software requirements and the functional allocation between hardware and software. (5) How is software verified, validated, and tested for the system? (6) How is vendor software development overseen? (7) How is software load control implemented for the system to ensure that the correct software components are loaded onto the system? (8) What software quality assurance processes are used in the development of the system software? Are there problematic reporting, tracking and design standards? If software is vendor provided, vendor control must be addressed. (9) What procedures are in place to manage change configuration? How are these documented? (10) What programming language(s) are used? C? C++? (11) What standard(s) was software written to? c. Electronic Hardware Design and Testing. (1) Describe the standards and processes used to design, test, and modify electronic hardware system elements such as line replaceable units, circuit board assemblies, and COTS components. (2) How are safety critical electrical hardware components handled compared to non-safety critical hardware components? 6. Operations. a. National Airspace System (NAS) Integration and Interaction. (1) Surveillance and Aircraft Visibility. (a) Is the UA equipped with an operable Mode-C or Mode-S transponder? NCRSASL - 152

163 (b) What functions and/or settings of the transponder can be changed by the pilot? (c) Describe the transponder test procedures. (d) Does the UA have a high-visibility paint scheme that enables other pilots to see and avoid the UA and enables the observer(s) to visually acquire and track the UA? (e) What characteristics of the aircraft shape or structure increase its ability to be seen and tracked? (f) Does the UA have anti-collision lights? Does the UA have position lights? What are the procedures if the lights are inoperative? (2) Air traffic control and crewmember communications. (a) How does the pilot communicate with ATC? (b) How does the pilot communicate with other users of the airspace? (c) Describe the communications equipment (that is, radios), including any equipment on the aircraft. (d) Is there an intercommunication system that allows for communication between the pilot(s), ground support personnel, crewmembers, and observers? (e) What procedures have been established in the event of intercom failure? (3) Sense and avoid. (a) Describe the method(s) in place for sense and avoid, and if applicable, identify the members of the flightcrew that hold this responsibility. (b) What are the minimum traffic detection capabilities in azimuth and elevation? (c) Describe the procedures that will be implemented should an aircraft enter the operating area. (4) Chase aircraft operations. (a) Describe the roles and responsibilities of the chase aircraft crew. Note: Chase aircraft pilots must not concurrently perform either observer or UA pilot duties while operating the chase aircraft. i. Pilot. ii. Observers. (b) Describe any special training that the chase aircraft crew will receive. NCRSASL - 153

164 b. Flight Phases. (1) Preflight/taxi operations. (a) Describe the entire flight planning process, including how weather briefings and updates are obtained. (b) Describe your coordination procedures with ATC before takeoff by addressing at a minimum: i. Notices to Airmen (NOTAM). ii. Filing the flight plan. iii. Transponder codes. (c) Describe UAS preflight activities and the system and support equipment required by addressing at a minimum: i. The process by which the system is prepared for flight. ii. The systems required to prepare the system for flight. iii. What critical process points are established, such as system configuration files needed to establish flight controls calibration? (d) Describe how mapping updates are performed on the control station. (e) Describe the flightline/operations safety program, if any. (f) How do you ensure the area is clear for taxi? (g) Describe the procedures to ensure the engine isn t started in a manner that could cause injury to ground personnel. (2) Take off/launch. Provide a description of system equipment required for this operation. Identify unique system performance and procedures. (3) Flight. (a) Identify the components of the system, including support equipment that is required for the UA to conduct safe flight operations. Information presented in response to this item shall address at a minimum: i. The process by which the system is operated during flight. ii. The systems required to operate the system during flight. iii. Critical process points that are established. NCRSASL - 154

165 (b) Describe the method for switching between pilot-controlled (manual) and autonomous flight modes. At what points during the flight will this happen? (c) What indication does the pilot have that they are in control of the aircraft? (d) How are changes made to the flight plan during flight? (e) Describe the procedures in the event of lost communication with ATC (if applicable). (4) Landing/recovery. Provide a description of system equipment required for this operation. Identify unique system performance and procedures. (5) Post flight. (a) This subsection intends to identify the parts of the system, including support equipment required for the UAS to conduct safe operations. Information presented in response to this item shall address at a minimum: i. The process by which the system is operated post-flight. ii. The systems required to operate the system post-flight. iii. Critical process points that are established. (b) Describe the process for a post-flight inspection. (c) Describe the process for incident/accident reporting. c. Operating Areas. (1) How do you ensure that there is no unusual ground activity under the flight operations area? For example, are there any weekend events scheduled? Are there housing areas or public gathering places? (2) Identify any military or civilian routes through the proposed operational area. (3) Identify the proposed operating area on an aeronautical chart. The proposed area needs to define lateral boundaries and requested altitudes. d. Flight Envelope and Test Plans. (1) Describe the conditions under which flight envelopes will be tested. How close will operations be to any populated areas and major highways? (2) Describe how you plan to meet test objectives under the proposed flight envelop and operating area. Include test plans, if possible. NCRSASL - 155

166 e. Operating History. Describe the operational history of the UAS. Include details of the following items: (1) Total number of flights and flight hours on the UA. (2) Any system failures, incidents, accidents, or emergencies, and the resultant system modifications or corrective actions. f. Manuals. (1) Is there an operating manual for the aircraft? (2) Does the manual have a section with all of the aircraft limitations in one location? (3) Does the operating manual have bolded or underlined procedures for emergencies for memory item steps? (4) Is there an operational checklist for all phases of the operation? (5) Are there separate checklist items for normal, abnormal, or emergency procedures? 7. Organizational Considerations. a. Pilot/Crew Qualifications/Training Reference: 14 CFR part 61 Certification: Pilots and Flight Instructors; part 63 Flight Crew Members other than Pilots; part 65 Airmen other than Flight Crew Members. (1) Crew. Is there a crew resource management training program? If so, describe the program. (2) Pilot. (a) Do the pilots have a current pilot certificate? If so, what type of pilot certificate? (b) Do the pilots have a current medical certificate? If so, what class of medical certificate? (c) Describe all physical limitations that might prevent the pilot from getting a current pilot or medical certificate. Describe in detail and reference any procedures that show that the pilots are properly trained. Is there an established formal training curriculum for all pilots including PIC, supplemental, or chase pilots(s)? (d) Is the pilot type rated for the aircraft being flown? (3) Observer. (a) Do the observers have a current pilot certificate? If so, what type of pilot certificate? NCRSASL - 156

167 10/27/ A Appendix D (b) Do the observers have a current medical certificate? If so, what class of medical certificate? (c) Describe all physical limitations that might prevent the observer from getting a current medical certificate. (d) Does the observer understand the applicable aviation regulations such as see and avoid, clear of clouds, and right of way rules? (e) Is the observer a current pilot or have a training curriculum? Is there an established formal training curriculum for all observers? If so, please provide it during the site visit. (f) Describe, in detail, how the observer is properly trained to be an effective member of the flight team. (g) Does the observer understand i. Proper communications and phraseology? ii. Proper visual scan techniques? iii. Standard flight operations at non-towered airports? that area? iv. Containment areas and how to determine whether the UA is operating within b. Maintenance. (1) Provide an inspection and maintenance program (see 14 CFR part 43, appendix D). (2) Provide information on unique system maintenance activities, such as maintenance of a pneumatic launcher system. End of Safety Checklist D-14 NCRSASL - 157

168 Appendix E. Administrative Information 1. Distribution. This order is distributed to the Washington headquarters branch levels of the Aircraft Certification Service, Flight Standards Service, and the Regulatory Support Division; to the Aviation System Standards office; to the branch level in the Aircraft Certification Service directorates and regional Flight Standards Service divisions; to all aircraft certification offices; to all manufacturing inspection district offices (MIDO) and manufacturing inspection satellite offices (MISO); to all flight standards district offices (FSDO); to the Aircraft Certification Branch and Flight Standards Branch at the FAA Academy; to the International Policy Branch (Brussels, Belgium), Flight Standards staff; and to all international field offices. 2. Background. In 2005, the Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety determined that unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) could be given limited access to the National Airspace System (NAS) (see Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations part 21, (Certification Procedures for Products and Parts), (a), (c), and (f) (Experimental certificates)). The Director of the Aircraft Certification Service, with concurrence from the Director of the Flight Standards Service, stipulated that this process be managed by the office of primary responsibility for , (Experimental certificates: Aircraft to be used for market surveys, sales demonstrations, and customer crew training). The Aircraft Certification Service, Production and Airworthiness Division, AIR-200, leads the UAS experimental certification process and is tasked with coordinating all aspects of issuing an experimental certificate to a UAS or OPA applicant. If there are any questions regarding this order, please contact a member of the Evaluations and Special Projects Branch, AIR-240, at More information on unmanned aircraft can be found on the FAA website at 3. Authority to Change This Order. The issuance, revision, or cancellation of the material in this order is the responsibility of AIR-200. AIR-200 will institute all changes to carry out the agency s responsibility to provide for original and recurrent airworthiness certifications and related approvals. 4. Forms. Examples of forms referenced in this order are found in FAA Order , Airworthiness Certification of Aircraft and Related Products. 5. Deviations. Adherence to the procedures in this order is necessary for uniform administration of this directive material. Any deviations from this guidance material must be coordinated and approved by AIR-200. If a deviation becomes necessary, the FAA employee involved should ensure the deviations are substantiated, documented, and concurred with by the appropriate supervisor. The deviation must be submitted to AIR-200 for review and approval. Title 28, United States Code 2679, defines the limits of federal protection for FAA employees. NCRSASL - 158

169 10/27/ A Appendix F 6. Suggestions for Improvement. Please forward all comments on deficiencies, clarifications, or improvements regarding this order to: Aircraft Certification Service Administrative Services Branch, AIR-510 ATTN: Directives Management Officer 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC FAA Form , Directive Feedback Information, is located as appendix G to this order for your convenience. If you require an immediate interpretation, please contact AIR-200 at (202) ; however, you should also complete Form as a follow-up to the conversation. 7. Records Management. See FAA Orders (FAA Standard Subject Classification System) and (Records Organization, Transfer, and Destruction Standards), or your Records Management Officer/Directives Management Officer for guidance regarding retention or disposition. E-2 NCRSASL - 159

170 Appendix F. Definitions a. Airworthy. An unmanned aircraft system (UAS) is airworthy if the aircraft and all of the other associated support equipment of the UAS are in condition for safe operation. Special emphasis must be placed on the integrity of the data link. If any element of the systems is not in condition for safe operation, then the UA would not be considered airworthy. b. Direct Control. The capability of a remote pilot to manipulate the flight control surfaces of the aircraft in a direct fashion using, for example, a radio control box with joystick or a ground control station using conventional type aircraft controls (such as a yoke/stick, rudder pedals, power levers, and other ancillary controls). This infers a one-to-one correspondence between control input and flight control surface deflection. c. Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA): The authority needed to operate a UAS in the National Airspace System (NAS) as a public aircraft. COAs are issued by the FAA Air Traffic Organization. d. Exemption. Relief from the requirements of a current regulation as provided for in 14 CFR part 11, General Rulemaking Procedures. e. Indirect Control. The capability of a remote pilot to affect the trajectory of the aircraft through computer input to an onboard flight control system. An example of an indirect control would be the entry of a navigational fix or waypoint on a remote system that, in turn, uploads this information to an onboard autopilot. The autopilot then computes the flight control inputs to achieve a flight path to the uploaded waypoint. The onboard system controls the flight control surfaces. f. Optionally Piloted Aircraft (OPA). An aircraft that is integrated with UAS technology and still retains the capability of being flown by an onboard pilot using conventional control methods. g. Safety Evaluation. A comprehensive review of an applicant s UAS or OPA and all associated elements defined in paragraph f and j of this appendix. The applicant is expected to provide any and all information necessary to allow the FAA to objectively determine if the UAS or OPA can be safely operated in the NAS. The form of this review is a presentation by the applicant to the FAA. The safety evaluation is a formal review of the information contained in the safety checklist and is performed at the discretion of the FAA. h. Support Equipment. All associated equipment, whether ground based or airborne, used to enable safe operation of the unmanned aircraft. This includes all elements of the control station, data links, telemetry, navigation, communications equipment, as well as equipment that may be used to launch and recover the aircraft. i. Unmanned Aircraft (UA). A device used or intended to be used for flight in the air that has no onboard pilot. This includes all classes of airplanes, helicopters, airships, and translational lift aircraft that have no onboard pilot. Unmanned aircraft include only those aircraft controllable in three dimensions and, therefore, exclude traditional balloons and unpowered gliders. NCRSASL - 160

171 10/27/ A j. Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS). An unmanned aircraft and its associated elements related to safe operation, which may include control stations, data links, support equipment, payloads, flight termination systems, and launch/recovery equipment. F-2 NCRSASL - 161

172 Appendix G. FAA Form , Directive Feedback Information Directive Feedback Information Please submit any written comments or recommendations for improving this directive, or suggest new items or subjects to be added to it. Also, if you find an error, please tell us about it. Subject: FAA Order A To: Administrative Services Branch, AIR-510 (Please check all appropriate line items) An error (procedural or typographical) has been noted in paragraph on page. Recommend paragraph on page be changed as follows: (attach separate sheet if necessary) In a future change to this directive, please include coverage on the following subject (briefly describe what you want added): Other comments: I would like to discuss the above. Please contact me. Submitted by: Date: FTS Telephone Number: Routing Symbol: FAA Form (10-98) NCRSASL - 162

173 FACT SHEET UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (UAS) Updated July 2011 Introduction Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) come in a variety of shapes and sizes and serve diverse purposes. They may have a wingspan as large as a Boeing 737 or be smaller than a radiocontrolled model aircraft. A designated pilot in command is always in control of a UAS. Historically, UAS have mainly supported military and security operations overseas, with training occurring in the United States. In addition, UAS are utilized in U.S. border and port surveillance by the Department of Homeland Security, scientific research and environmental monitoring by NASA and NOAA, public safety by law enforcement agencies, research by state universities, and various other uses by public (government) agencies. Interest is growing in civil uses, including commercial photography, aerial mapping, crop monitoring, advertising, communications and broadcasting. Unmanned aircraft systems may increase efficiency, save money, enhance safety, and even save lives. In the United States alone, approximately 50 companies, universities, and government organizations are developing and producing over 155 unmanned aircraft designs. The FAA s Role: Safety First The FAA s main concern about UAS operations in the National Airspace System (NAS) is safety. The NAS encompasses an average of more than 100,000 aviation operations per day, including air carrier, air taxi, general aviation, and military aircraft. There are approximately 18,000 air carrier aircraft and 230,000 active general aviation aircraft in the U.S. It is critical that UAS do not endanger current users of the NAS, including manned and other unmanned aircraft, or compromise the safety of persons or property on the ground. In addition to recreational use of UAS by modelers, there are two acceptable means of operating UAS in the NAS outside of restricted airspace: Special Airworthiness Certificates in the Experimental Category (SAC-EC) and Certificates of Waiver or Authorization (COA). Model Aircraft Recreational use of the NAS is covered by FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57, which generally limits operations to below 400 feet above ground level and away from airports and air traffic. Experimental UAS An SAC-EC is the only certification means available to civil operators for UAS and optionallypiloted aircraft (OPA). Due to regulatory requirements, this approval precludes carrying persons or property for compensation or hire, but does allow operations for research and development, market survey, and crew training. Since July 2005, the FAA has issued 94 SAC-EC, to 13 civil operators covering 20 unique UAS and OPA types. The FAA works with these operators to collect technical and operational data to improve the UAS airworthiness certification process. NCRSASL - 163

174 Public UAS The COA process is available to public entities, including military, law enforcement, and other governmental agencies who want to fly a UAS in civil airspace. Applicants apply online and the FAA evaluates the request. The FAA issues a COA generally based on the following principles: The COA authorizes an operator to use defined airspace and includes special provisions unique to the proposed operation. For instance, a COA may include a requirement to operate only under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) and/or only during daylight hours. Most COAs are issued for a specified time period (up to one year, in most cases). Most COAs require coordination with an appropriate air traffic control facility and may require the UAS to have a transponder to operate in certain types of airspace. Due to the inability of UAS to comply with see and avoid rules as manned aircraft operations do, a visual observer or an accompanying chase aircraft must maintain visual contact with the UAS and serve as its eyes when operating outside of airspace that is restricted from other users. The FAA issued 146 COAs in 2009 and 298 in 2010, more than doubling in one year. As of June 28, 2011, there were 251 active COAs, 90 different proponents, and 77 different aircraft types. Civil UAS (Future Operations) With the proposed small UAS Rule (described below) and the update to the Civil UAS NAS Integration Roadmap, the FAA is laying the path forward for safe integration of civil UAS into the NAS. The roadmap will describe the research and development necessary for the FAA to develop standards and policy for safe integration. An evolved transition will occur, with access increasing from accommodation to integration into today s NAS, and ultimately into the future NAS as it evolves over time. Operation and Certification Standards To address the increasing civil market and the desire by civilian operators to fly UAS, the FAA is developing new policies, procedures, and approval processes. Developing and implementing new UAS standards and guidance is a long-term effort. The FAA created the Unmanned Aircraft Program Office (UAPO), within Aviation Safety (AVS), and the Unmanned Aircraft Systems Group, within Air Traffic Organization (ATO), to integrate UAS safely and efficiently into the NAS. These specific AVS and ATO offices are co-located to enhance communication and efficiency. The FAA, working closely with stakeholders in the UAS community to define operational and certification requirements, stood up UAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) to bring inputs and recommendations to the FAA on UAS matters. It is critical to develop and validate appropriate operational procedures, regulatory standards, and policies to enable routine UAS access to the NAS. The FAA has asked RTCA a group that frequently advises the agency on technical issues to work with industry and develop UAS standards. RTCA will answer two key questions: 1. How will UAS handle communication, command, and control? 2. How will UAS sense and avoid other aircraft? NCRSASL - 164

175 In addition, the FAA continues to work closely with its international counterparts to harmonize standards, policies, procedures, and regulatory requirements. Data is Key More safety data is needed to assist the FAA in making informed decisions on integration of UAS into the NAS, where the public travels each day. Currently, operations under COAs are required to report monthly operational data and incident/accident data. Increased data collection will allow the FAA to assess and enhance safety and expand the use of this technology. Small Eyes in the Sky The FAA expects small UAS (suas) to experience the greatest near-term growth in civil and commercial operations because of their versatility and relatively low initial cost and operating expenses. The agency has received extensive public comment on suas, both from proponents who believe their small size warrants minimal regulation and from groups concerned about hazards to manned general aviation aircraft and persons or property on the ground. In April 2008, the FAA chartered the ARC to examine these operational and safety issues and make recommendations for proceeding with regulating suas. From this process, the agency drafted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with anticipated publication, late One of the most promising potential uses for suas is in law enforcement. Although the suas ARC was not focused specifically on law enforcement organizations, these proponents were active participants on the ARC. Currently, any law enforcement organization must follow the COA process to conduct demonstration flights. The FAA is working with urban police departments in major metropolitan areas as well as national public safety organizations on test programs involving unmanned aircraft. The goal is to identify the challenges that UAS will bring into this environment to determine the operations that can be conducted safely by law enforcement. The Bottom Line Because of their inherent differences from manned aircraft, such as the pilot removed from the aircraft and the need for sense and avoid, introduction of UAS into the NAS is challenging for both the FAA and aviation community. In addition, UAS must be integrated into an evolving NAS, from one with ground-based navigational aids to a GPS-based system in NextGen. Each year, public agency interest and use of COAs have increased. With the introduction of the suas Rule for civil operators, there will be an increase in the number and scope of UAS flights in an already busy NAS. Decisions being made about UAS airworthiness and operational requirements must fully address safety implications of UAS flying in the same airspace as manned aircraft, and perhaps more importantly, aircraft with passengers. Overcoming these challenges associated with the differences between manned and unmanned aircraft while simultaneously transitioning to NextGen further amplifies the need for extensive cooperation between the FAA, other government agencies, and industry. NCRSASL - 165

176 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION National Policy ORDER /28/2011 SUBJ: Airworthiness Certification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems and Optionally Piloted Aircraft This order establishes procedures for issuing special airworthiness certificates in the experimental category or special fli ght permits to unmanned aircraft systems and optionally piloted aircraft. The procedures in this order apply to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) manufacturing aviation safety inspectors (AS I) and FAA flight standards AS ls. J' mes D. Seipel :4.cling Manager Production and Airworthiness Division, AIR-200 Distribution: Electronic Initiated By: AIR 200 NCRSASL - 166

177 Paragraph Table of Contents Page Chapter 1. Introduction 1. Purpose of This Order Audience Where Can I Find This Order Explanation of Policy Changes Action Date Chapter 2. Policies and Procedures Section 1. Aircraft Registration 1. Special Airworthiness Certificates Responsibilities of FAA ASIs Possession and Display of a Certificate of Aircraft Registration, an Airworthiness Certificate, and an Aircraft Flight Manual Aircraft Registration Registration Numbers, Reservation of Registration Numbers, Special Registration Numbers, Temporary Registration Numbers, and Size of Registration Numbers Inspection and Maintenance Programs Section 2. Airworthiness Certificates 1. Issuance of Original Airworthiness Certificates Reissue of Airworthiness Certificates Replacement or Amendment of Airworthiness Certificates Surrendered Airworthiness Certificate Safeguarding FAA Airworthiness Certificates Recording of Inspections Records Retention Chapter 3. Special Airworthiness Certification Section 1. Procedural Requirements 1. General Application for an Airworthiness Certificate Certification Procedures NCRSASL - 167

178 Paragraph Page Section 2. Certification and Operation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems 1. Experimental Certificates Special Flight Permits FAA Form , Special Airworthiness Certificate, and Attachments Onsite Activities Flight Test Areas Operating Limitations Section 3. Certification and Operation of Optionally Piloted Aircraft 1. Manned Aircraft Safety Pilot Opting out of the FAA Safety Evaluation Densely Populated Areas Certification Process Appendix A. Sample Operating Limitations for Unmanned Aircraft Systems 1. General Information... A-1 2. Program Letter... A-3 3. Initial Flight Testing for an Experimental Certificate... A-3 4. Authorized Flight Operations Area... A-4 5. UA Pilots and Observers... A-4 6. Equipage... A-7 7. Air Traffic Control Provisions... A-7 8. Communications... A-8 9. Flight Prohibitions... A Flight Termination and Lost Link Procedures... A Inspection and Maintenance... A Information Reporting... A Revisions and Other Provisions... A UAS Modifications... A-10 Appendix B. Sample Operating Limitations for Optionally Piloted Aircraft 1. Applicability...B-1 2. OPA Limitations...B-1 NCRSASL - 168

179 11/28/ B Paragraph Page Appendix C. Sample Program Letter for Unmanned Aircraft Systems or Optionally Piloted Aircraft: Experimental Certificate and/or a Special Flight Permit 1. Overview of Project...C-1 2. Definition of Flight Areas...C-1 3. Aircraft Configuration...C-2 4. Inspection and Maintenance...C-3 5. Pilot Qualification...C-3 6. Identification and Registration Marking...C-3 7. ATC Transponder and Altitude Reporting Equipment and Use...C-4 8. Method for See-and-Avoid...C-4 9. Safety Risk Management...C System Configuration...C System Safety Flight Termination and Lost Link...C Command and Control...C Control Stations...C Control Frequencies...C-4 Appendix D. Safety Checklist 1. Introduction... D-1 2. Aircraft Segment... D-1 3. Control and Communications Segment... D-5 4. Ground Support Equipment... D-8 5. Processes and Procedures... D-8 6. Operations... D Organizational Considerations... D-13 Appendix E. Administrative Information 1. Distribution...E-1 2. Background...E-1 3. Authority to Change This Order...E-1 4. Forms...E-1 5. Deviations...E-1 6. Suggestions for Improvement...E-2 7. Records Management...E-2 Appendix F. Definitions...F-1 Appendix G. FAA Form , Directive Feedback Information... G-1 iv NCRSASL - 169

180 Chapter 1. Introduction 1. Purpose of This Order. This order establishes procedures for issuing special airworthiness certificates in the experimental category or special flight permits to unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) and manned aircraft integrated with UAS technology. For the purposes of this directive, manned aircraft integrated with UAS technology are referred to as optionally piloted aircraft (OPA). UAS, OPA, and unmanned aircraft (UA) are further defined in Appendix F of this order. The procedures contained in this order apply to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) manufacturing aviation safety inspectors (ASI) and to FAA flight standards ASIs. Representatives of the Administrator or delegated organizations are not authorized to issue special airworthiness certificates to UAS and OPA. Note: The use of the word should throughout this order refers to a recommended practice. The associated activity is not a requirement; therefore, a record of completion is not required. 2. Audience. All manufacturing inspection offices, aircraft certification office personnel, directorate managers, flight standards division managers, flight standards district offices (FSDO), and Air Traffic Organization (ATO) personnel involved in UAS and OPA operations. 3. Where Can I Find This Order? You can find this order on the internet at 4. Explanation of Policy Changes. This revision added the issuance of special flight permits for production flight testing new production aircraft. This revision also added a dedicated section for Air Traffic Control in the operating limitations. Clarification on the removal of remote control equipment from OPA, when the operator elects to not undergo a FAA safety evaluation, was also provided. 5. Action Date. FAA managing offices must implement the procedures contained in this order no later than 30 days from the date of issuance. NCRSASL - 170

181 1. Special Airworthiness Certificates. Chapter 2. Policies and Procedures Section 1. Aircraft Registration a. Personnel Authorized to Issue Special Airworthiness Certificates to UAS and OPA. Consistent with applicable Aircraft Certification Service (AIR) policies and instructions, FAA manufacturing ASIs are authorized to issue experimental airworthiness certificates and special flight permits. For the purposes of this directive, FAA manufacturing ASIs are responsible for the issuance of both original and recurrent experimental certificates and special flight permits for UAS and OPA. b. Personnel Not Authorized to Issue Special Airworthiness Certificates to UAS and OPA. Representatives of the Administrator or delegated organizations authorized under part 183 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) are not permitted to issue experimental certificates or special flight permits to UAS and OPA. c. Electronic Signatures. The use of an electronic signature on an experimental certificate or a special flight permit is not permitted. 2. Responsibilities of FAA ASIs. The procedural requirements for issuing airworthiness certificates in this order differ from those in FAA Order , Airworthiness Certification of Aircraft and Related Products. Order states that FAA manufacturing ASIs are responsible for issuing original airworthiness certificates and FAA flight standards ASIs are responsible for issuing recurrent airworthiness certificates. As stated in paragraph 1 of this section, FAA manufacturing ASIs are responsible for issuing airworthiness certificates for UAS and OPA. During the certification process, flight standards ASIs review and accept the UAS and OPA inspection and maintenance program. 3. Possession and Display of a Certificate of Aircraft Registration, an Airworthiness Certificate, and an Aircraft Flight Manual. The unique aspects of UAS design and configuration make compliance with 14 CFR (a) and (b) challenging. The same is true for 91.9(b)(2) concerning the flight manual, marking, and placard requirements. The purpose of carrying and displaying these documents is for the benefit of the pilot, crew, passengers, and FAA. Because the aircraft is unmanned, the applicant must petition the FAA for relief from compliance with this requirement in accordance with 14 CFR part 11, General Rulemaking Procedures. If an exemption is granted, the aircraft registration, airworthiness certificate, and aircraft flight manual must be maintained at the location defined in the exemption. 4. Aircraft Registration. a. Registration. The procedures for UA registration and issuance of registration numbers are contained in 14 CFR part 47, Aircraft Registration. Requirements for OPA registration can be found in Order The registration of UA is not a function of airworthiness certification; however, U.S. registration is a prerequisite for issuance of an airworthiness certificate. The FAA must ensure that any UAS presented for airworthiness certification is properly registered (Title 49, United States Code 44704(c) and 14 CFR ). NCRSASL - 171

182 b. Proof of Ownership. The applicant for registration of a UA must submit proof of ownership to the FAA Aircraft Registration Branch (AFS-750) that meets the requirements prescribed in part 47. Aeronautical Center (AC) Form , Aircraft Bill of Sale, or its equivalent, may be used as proof of ownership. The first time the UA is registered, the manufacturer must also complete and submit AC Form , Affidavit of Ownership for Experimental Aircraft Including Amateur-Built Aircraft and Other Non-Type Certificated Aircraft. If the applicant did not purchase the UA from the last registered owner, the applicant must submit a complete chain of ownership from the last registered owner to the applicant. The purchaser under a contract of conditional sale is considered the owner for the purpose of registration. The contract of conditional sale may be submitted as proof of ownership in lieu of a bill of sale. 5. Registration Numbers, Reservation of Registration Numbers, Special Registration Numbers, Temporary Registration Numbers, and Size of Registration Numbers. a. Registration Numbers. All U.S. civil aircraft registration numbers are prefixed by an N. The registration number, apart from the N prefix, is made up of one to five symbols, the last two of which may be alphabetical. This alphabetical suffix must be preceded by at least one numerical symbol. The lowest possible number is N1. A zero never precedes the first number. For example: N1 through N99999, all symbols are numeric. N1A through N9999Z, single alphabetical suffix. N1AA through N999ZZ, double alphabetical suffix. Note: To avoid confusion with the numbers zero and one, the letters O and I are never used as alphabetical suffixes. b. Reservation of Registration Numbers. (1) A person may reserve a registration number of his or her choice, if available, for 1 year by sending a written request and the appropriate fee for each number to be reserved to the following address: FAA Aircraft Registration Branch, AFS-750 Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center P.O. Box Oklahoma City, OK (2) The applicant should list five numbers in case the first choice is not available. Reservations may be renewed from year to year by paying the appropriate fee before the end of the renewal period. If the renewal payment is not received before the end of the 1-year period, reservation of the special registration number will expire. Note: After AFS-750 has been notified that the numbers have been permanently affixed to the aircraft and the airworthiness certificate has been issued, no subsequent fees will apply. NCRSASL - 172

183 c. Special Registration Numbers. The following procedures apply: (1) If a special registration number is desired for the UA, the owner must apply, in writing, to AFS-750, describing the UA for a special registration number. Permission to place the special number on the UA will be given on AC Form , Assignment of Special Registration Numbers. (2) The owner must complete, sign, and return the original form to AFS-750 within 5 days after the special registration number is affixed to the UA. (3) The duplicate of Form and the present experimental certificate must be presented to the FAA ASI, who will issue a replacement experimental certificate showing the new registration number. (4) The old certificate of aircraft registration and the duplicate Form must be available until the new certificate of aircraft registration is received (see 47.15, Identification number). (5) Any changes in the current assignment of nationality and registration numbers will be processed as a request for assignment of special registration numbers. d. Temporary Registration Numbers. In accordance with 47.16, temporary registration numbers are issued by the FAA to manufacturers, distributors, and dealers. These persons are holders of Dealer s Aircraft Registration Certificates, AC Form , for temporary display on aircraft during flight allowed under subpart C of part 47. e. Size of Registration Numbers. Nationality and registration marks displayed on aircraft must be in accordance with 14 CFR part 45, Identification and Registration Marking. 6. Inspection and Maintenance Programs. Applicants must develop an inspection and maintenance program for the continued airworthiness of the UAS or OPA. Information on inspection and maintenance programs and how they relate to UAS or OPA follows: a. Inspection Elements. Inspection elements include the items to be inspected, the inspection interval, and instructions for completion of the inspection (for example, visual, eddy current, and operational). All UAS or OPA programs must include this information appropriate to the UAS or OPA and the type of operation. Operators should see 14 CFR part 43, Appendix D, Scope and Detail of Items (as Applicable to the Particular Aircraft) To Be Included in Annual and 100-Hour Inspections, as a general guideline for the types of items that should be included. b. Maintenance Elements. Maintenance elements describe what and how maintenance is to be performed. For most UAS or OPA, this will simply be how discrepancies are recorded and how logbook entries are made (for example, how often, what is included). The specifics of what is required for the operator s maintenance program are defined in the operating limitations. NCRSASL - 173

184 Section 2. Airworthiness Certificates 1. Issuance of Original Airworthiness Certificates. a. FAA Form , Special Airworthiness Certificate, is the only airworthiness certificate that can be issued to a UAS or OPA. Form will be referred to as being a special classification within this order. Within the special classification, an experimental certificate may be issued to a UAS in the following categories (see , Experimental certificates): (1) Research and development (R&D), (a). (2) Crew training, (c). (3) Market survey, (f). b. FAA Form will also be used to issue special flight permits for production flight testing new aircraft. Ownership of the aircraft must be held by the manufacturer during production flight testing. Applicants must indicate their desire to apply for a special flight permit and include the information required in , Issue of special flight permits, in their program letter. 2. Reissue of Airworthiness Certificates. a. If requested by an applicant, an experimental certificate may be reissued. The applicant must notify AIR-200 and provide information relative to the intent to request certification. b. If the applicant does not plan to make changes to the UAS or OPA, the certification process may be abbreviated. The applicant is required to declare that the information in the safety checklist is accurate and has not changed. This declaration must be made in writing. Any modifications accomplished during the previous period of certification must have been reviewed by the FAA before incorporation. The applicant must provide a new program letter to AIR-200 for the period covering the certification. AIR-200 will verify that the requirements for changes have been satisfied. Any changes to the inspection and maintenance program will be coordinated with the geographically responsible FSDO. c. If an applicant produces a duplicate UA or OPA with no changes from the original, reissue procedures described above may be used for certification. d. AIR-200 will generate new operating limitations and coordinate with the manufacturing ASI, flight standards ASI, AJV-13, and AFS-407. e. The manufacturing ASI will notify AIR-200 within 2 business days that the UA or OPA was successfully certificated. 3. Replacement or Amendment of Airworthiness Certificates. Changes to the current airworthiness certificate require specific actions and the issuance of a new Form Each form will be completed in accordance with this order. NCRSASL - 174

185 a. Replacement. (1) The FAA may issue a replacement airworthiness certificate when a certificate is declared lost, has been mutilated, or is no longer legible. The replacement airworthiness certificate must carry the original issue date of the certificate being replaced, preceded by a capital R in the Date block of the certificate. Replacement certificates also will be issued when the UA or OPA registration number has been changed. In these cases, a new application for airworthiness certification is not required. (2) A request for a replacement certificate is made to the issuing certification office (manufacturing inspection district office (MIDO)/manufacturing inspection satellite office (MISO)). The registered owner makes this request by submitting a signed statement containing the registration number (N-number), serial number, make, and model of the UA or OPA, and a reason the replacement certificate is needed. Replacement of airworthiness certificates must not be accomplished by verbal agreement. (3) A replacement airworthiness certificate may be issued without supporting documentation from AFS-750 if the date of issuance and the airworthiness classification and/or category of the lost or mutilated certificate can be positively established from the UAS or OPA records, or from the remains of the certificate. If there is insufficient data on which to base issuance of the replacement certificate, the FAA ASI will request copies of the appropriate data (such as the application form or previously issued airworthiness certificate) from AFS-750. (4) Before issuing a replacement certificate, the FAA must review the UAS or OPA records and, if necessary, inspect the UAS or OPA to ensure that the applicant s request is justified and that the UAS or OPA is eligible for a special airworthiness certificate. (5) A copy of the replacement certificate must be forwarded to AFS-750. b. Amendment. (1) A special airworthiness certificate may be amended when there is a change in the operating limitations for a UAS or OPA. Note: Changes to any system, component, or software of a UAS or OPA may affect the operating limitations imposed by the experimental certificate. Applicants must consult with AIR-200 and the issuing office concerning changes to the UAS or OPA that may impact any operating limitation imposed. (2) When a certificate is amended, the issuance date will be the current date, and the capital letter A will be typed in front of the date. NCRSASL - 175

186 11/28/ B (3) Any amendment of an airworthiness certificate will require submission of FAA Form , Application for Airworthiness Certificate, to the issuing certification office (MIDO/MISO). An appropriate record entry, in accordance with this order, will be made in the UAS or OPA records documenting the issuance of the amended certificate. (4) A copy of the amended certificate must be forwarded to AFS Surrendered Airworthiness Certificate. a. Written Authorization. An aircraft owner or authorized representative who voluntarily surrenders an airworthiness certificate by written authorization must state why the certificate is being surrendered. The authorization and certificate must be forwarded to AFS-750 for retention in the permanent airworthiness files for the UA or OPA. b. Selling or Leasing in the United States. When a UA or OPA owner or operator sells or leases a U.S.-owned UA or OPA to a purchaser in the United States, the registration may be transferred or the UA or OPA may be deregistered. In either case, the airworthiness certificate must be surrendered to the FAA issuing office by the current UA or OPA owner or operator. c. Selling or Leasing to Other Countries. When a UA or OPA owner or operator sells or leases a U.S.-owned UA or OPA to a purchaser in another country for operations and registration, the aircraft is deregistered and the airworthiness certificate is no longer effective. Therefore, the airworthiness certificate must be surrendered to the FAA by the UA or OPA owner or operator. 5. Safeguarding FAA Airworthiness Certificates. Airworthiness certificates are official forms and must be safeguarded by those FAA ASIs who are charged with their issuance. Airworthiness certificates may not be produced in a computerized electronic format. Every measure must be taken to ensure these certificates are not obtained by unauthorized persons. At no time may a blank certificate be given to any unauthorized individual. Blank airworthiness certificates must be secured in a locked container when left unattended. 6. Recording of Inspections. FAA Form , Conformity Inspection Record, is used to document airworthiness certification. Form must be prepared in accordance with the instructions shown on the back of the form. 7. Records Retention. A copy of all certification documents are to be retained in the project files of the issuing ASI as required by Order Form must be retained in accordance with FAA Order , Records Organization, Transfer, and Destruction Standards, and any other National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)-approved document requirements. 2-6 NCRSASL - 176

187 Chapter 3. Special Airworthiness Certification Section 1. Procedural Requirements 1. General. The procedures in this chapter provide guidance material associated with airworthiness certification and the issuance of Form Part 21, subpart H, Airworthiness Certificates, prescribes the procedural requirements for airworthiness certification for experimental aircraft. 2. Application for an Airworthiness Certificate. Form is required whenever a special airworthiness certificate is issued or amended. This includes changes to operating limitations that may have been prescribed. UA and OPA experimental certificate applicants must complete sections I, II, and III (blocks A, B (as applicable), C, and D). Applicants for a special flight permit to conduct production flight testing must complete sections I, II, and VI. The applicant must sign the application. A sample program letter, unique to UAS and OPA, has been prepared as Appendix C to this order. The applicant s program letter must be submitted to the FAA with any other document(s) required for the requested certification. The program letter is based on the requirements of , Experimental certificates: general. 3. Certification Procedures. In no case may any UAS or OPA be operated as a civil aircraft unless there is an appropriate and valid airworthiness certificate issued for that UAS or OPA. The following procedures describe the details for issuance of Form , consistent with any other specific procedures that may be prescribed in other paragraphs. The FAA must conduct a safety evaluation and inspections necessary to verify proper completion of the certification procedures listed below, including any other inspections deemed appropriate for that certification. a. Program Letter. The applicant must provide a completed program letter to AIR-200 that includes the information contained in the sample program letter template provided in Appendix C to this order. The sample template identifies the aircraft, the purpose of the certificate, the area over which the requested operations are to be conducted, the duration of the program, and other required information. The template must also contain information on the following specific areas: (1) Containment. The FAA is particularly concerned with the ability of the aircraft to be contained within the boundaries of the proposed flight area. The applicant s ability to provide information that satisfies this requirement will help determine and define the operational area. (2) Lost link. The applicant must provide a detailed process in the safety checklist describing the sequence the UA will follow in the event command and control is lost. This process may result in safely returning to a predefined lost-link waypoint, or any other procedure that is safe and predictable. (3) Flight termination. In the event the UA command and control link is unrecoverable, an independent means to safely terminate the flight must be provided. NCRSASL - 177

188 b. Safety Checklist. The applicant must provide a completed safety checklist to AIR-200 that includes the information contained in the template provided in Appendix D to this order. The safety checklist assists the applicant in providing all the required information during the safety evaluation. c. Safety Evaluation. The FAA team typically consists of personnel from AIR-200, Unmanned Aircraft Program Office (AFS-407, UAPO), Unmanned Aircraft Program Group (AJV-13), Aircraft Maintenance Division (AFS-300), geographically responsible FSDO, and geographically responsible MIDO/MISO or certificate management office/certificate management unit (CMO/CMU). The FAA team will conduct a review of the information in the applicant s program letter and safety checklist. The review may take place at the applicant s facility, the MIDO/MISO, FAA Headquarters, or a location to be determined by the FAA. (1) The applicant is expected to provide a detailed explanation of the information provided in the safety checklist. The applicant must provide a presentation consisting of detailed system descriptions using block diagrams and schematics, and explain how the system operates. The applicant is expected to discuss how the system is designed, constructed, and manufactured, including engineering processes, software development and control, electronic hardware development and control, configuration management, and quality assurance. The applicant must also be prepared to discuss the proposed flight test area in detail. (2) The FAA must determine if the applicant s system is safe to operate in the National Airspace System (NAS) based on operational risk and safety assessments. The applicant will only get credit towards achieving this goal by providing the FAA with a complete understanding of the UAS or OPA. If the applicant s system is found to pose acceptable risk, AIR-200 will schedule a visit to the proposed flight test area within 30 to 60 days. (3) The following items must be submitted by the applicant as supporting documentation required by the safety checklist. These items must be submitted before issuance of the requested airworthiness certificate: (a) Proposed operating area. The proposed operating area must be plotted on an aeronautical chart with coordinates (latitude and longitude) that identify the area boundary. The distances of the boundary legs must be provided (for example, if the operating area is a rectangle, provide the length of the sides). The proposed altitudes of operation also must be included. Other types of charts and maps may be included in addition to the aeronautical charts. (b) Operations manuals and checklists. All appropriate operating manuals, including limitations and checklists (normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures), must be provided. (c) Training program. Applicants must provide an appropriate training curriculum for pilots, observers, chase operations, and ground personnel. Applicants must also provide documentation verifying that personnel have successfully completed all necessary training. (d) Licenses and certificates. Applicants will be informed that the FAA will request evidence of FAA pilot s license and/or medical certificates. Personnel not requiring a certificate, but required to have successfully completed an FAA-accepted pilot ground school, must ensure NCRSASL - 178

189 11/28/ B the written examination results are available to the FAA. These documents must be made available at any time upon request of the FAA, and will be verified during the safety evaluation or the meeting referenced in paragraph 3d below. (e) Frequency spectrum. Before conducting operations, the frequency spectrum used for operation and control of the UA or OPA must be approved by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or other appropriate government oversight agency. (This item may be included as an operating limitation.) d. Onsite Meeting and Schedule. At the completion of the safety evaluation, an onsite meeting and inspection will be scheduled by AIR-200. The purpose of this visit will be to inspect the applicant s aircraft (and system of control), accept/approve the UAS or OPA inspection and maintenance program, review and issue operating limitations, and issue the experimental certificate or special flight permit. The applicant is expected to perform a test fight immediately after the experimental certificate or special flight permit is issued to allow the FAA to validate the flight test area. This meeting is normally attended by the entire FAA team. However, scheduling the onsite meeting is dependent on several requirements that must be completed at least 30 days before the onsite meeting date. If this is not possible, the meeting will be postponed. Completion of the following items is necessary before the meeting: (1) Exemption to 91.9(b) and (a) and (b), if required; (2) Alternate marking approval letter, if required by 45.22(d); (3) Registration through the FAA Aircraft Registration Branch (AFS-750) in accordance with part 47; and (4) All open action items identified during the safety evaluation. 3-3 NCRSASL - 179

190 Section 2. Certification and Operation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems 1. Experimental Certificates. The procedures in this section apply to the issuance of experimental airworthiness certificates under the provisions of (a), (c), and (f), Experimental certificates: research and development (R&D), crew training, and market surveys. These are described below. a. Research and Development. Under (a), UAS are eligible for an experimental certificate for the purpose of research and development. The applicant may conduct research to determine whether an idea warrants further development. This includes testing new design concepts, aircraft equipment installations, operating techniques, or new uses for aircraft. In addition, the operation of a chase plane or other aircraft not otherwise eligible for a standard or an experimental certificate (but necessary for use in direct connection with the R&D project) is considered to be within the scope of this purpose. b. Crew Training. Under (c), UAS are eligible for an experimental certificate for the purpose of training the applicant s flight crews. These flight crews would normally be the manufacturer s employees necessary to be trained in experimental aircraft. Training must be accomplished by flight instructors certificated in accordance with 14 CFR part 61. c. Market Surveys. Under (f), U.S. manufacturers of UAS may apply for an experimental certificate for the purpose of market surveys, sales demonstrations, and customer crew training. The applicant must ensure the provisions of (d)(2) and (d)(3) are met by providing the FAA ASI with the estimated time or number of flights required for the market survey operation, as well as the area or itinerary over which the operations are to be conducted. Customer crew training must be accomplished by flight instructors certificated in accordance with part 61. (1) The FAA ASI must ensure the applicant meets the provisions of , Experimental certificates: Aircraft to be used for market surveys, sales demonstrations, and customer crew training. These provisions must be met before issuing the experimental certificate. must: (2) In addition to meeting the requirements in , an applicant under (a) Establish an inspection and maintenance program for the continued airworthiness of the aircraft, and (b) Show evidence that the aircraft has been flown for at least 50 hours, or for at least 5 hours if it is a type certificated aircraft which has been modified (see (d)(2)). Flight hours flown under its experimental airworthiness certificate (R&D, manufacturer s crew training, or market survey) or an FAA Certificate of Waiver or Authorization may be considered to meet this rule. This requirement must be specified in the operating limitations. NCRSASL - 180

191 2. Special Flight Permits. A special flight permit may be issued for an aircraft that may not currently meet applicable airworthiness requirements but is capable of safe flight for the purpose of production flight testing new production aircraft. 3. FAA Form , Special Airworthiness Certificate, and Attachments. a. Purpose of Form Form (GPO pad only) is used for certification of all UAS. b. Effective Period. (1) An experimental certificate for R&D, crew training, or market surveys is effective for 1 year or less after the date of issuance. (2) A special flight permit is effective for the period of time specified in the permit. c. Operating Limitations. Operating limitations generally applicable to nonstandard aircraft are printed on the reverse side of the form. The FAA also may prescribe additional operating limitations deemed necessary for the special purpose involved as authorized by , Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating limitations. The additional limitations will be enumerated on a separate sheet, dated, signed, and attached to Form See paragraph 5 of this section for information regarding additional operating limitations. The first page of the operating limitations is prepared on FAA letterhead paper. 4. Onsite Activities. After the safety evaluation is completed, as described in Section 1, paragraph 3c of this chapter, an onsite meeting and inspection will be scheduled. Onsite activities consist of the following: a. Record Inspection. The FAA ASI must do the following: (1) Obtain from the applicant a properly executed Form and any other documents required for the certification. (2) Review the documentation provided by the applicant to determine that the registration requirements of part 47 have been met. (3) Check with AFS-750 to determine if a denial letter exists for the particular UA. This may assist the ASI in determining UA eligibility. (4) Review the maintenance records to determine that any required maintenance and inspections have been accomplished. Records must include a statement that UAS has been inspected and found to be in condition for safe operation, as described in paragraph 3c(1)(a), below. (5) Provide copies of the applicable maintenance and inspection program to the flight standards ASI who will participate in the review process. NCRSASL - 181

192 (6) Following a sufficient review time, ensure the flight standards ASI has reviewed and accepted the applicable inspection and maintenance program as described in the applicant s program letter. Note: The maintenance program must include all supporting systems and equipment, for example, ground stations, launch and recovery systems, and backup generators. (7) Review the applicant s weight and balance data for accuracy and currency for the aircraft submitted. (8) Ensure the applicant has complied with all relevant airworthiness directives (ADs). (9) Establish all required documentation and records have been provided for the UAS. (10) Determine that the system configuration has been established and corresponds to the reviewed documentation. b. UAS Inspection. The applicant must arrange with the FAA to make the aircraft and related support systems available for inspection to determine the following: (1) The aircraft nationality and registration marks are in accordance with part 45 or alternate marking approval from AIR-200. Note: Experimental certificate applicants must attach a fireproof identification plate to their aircraft. Applicants for a special flight permit do not have to attach a fireproof identification plate to their aircraft. (2) The flight control system operates properly. (3) The engine(s), propeller(s), and associated instruments operate in accordance with the manufacturer s instructions. (4) The pitot-static and transponder inspections have been certified in accordance with , Altimeter system and altitude reporting equipment tests and inspections, and , ATC transponder tests and inspections. In addition, associated instruments must operate properly, if applicable. (5) All elements of the control station operate properly, as demonstrated by normal preflight operational transmit and receiver link checks of the control station to the UA. c. Certificate Issuance. (1) If the UAS meets the requirements for the certification requested, the FAA must (a) Make an entry in the maintenance records. The following or a similarly worded statement must be entered: I find this Unmanned Aircraft meets the requirements for the certification requested, and have issued a special airworthiness certificate dated (MM/DD/YYYY). The NCRSASL - 182

193 operation of this Unmanned Aircraft System is contingent upon (applicant s name) compliance with (title of the submitted program letter and documentation) and the operating limitations of this airworthiness certificate. A new condition inspection is required before issuance of another special airworthiness certificate. Signed: Aviation Safety Inspector, (Office Code) (b) Issue Form When completing block A of Form , Category/Designation, the FAA ASI will include the words Experimental (Unmanned Aircraft or Optionally Piloted Aircraft) or Special Flight Permit, as appropriate. When completing block A, Purpose, the FAA ASI will include the words Research & Development, Crew Training, or Market Survey, as appropriate, for an experimental certificate, or Production Flight Testing for a special flight permit. (c) Complete sections V and VIII of Form according to the instructions contained in Chapter 8 of Order The ASI will make an annotation in section II, block B identifying the aircraft as unmanned. The words Unmanned Aircraft or Optionally Piloted Aircraft will be entered in the block immediately after the preprinted wording until such time that Form is revised. (d) Examine, review, and route the certification file according to the instructions contained in Chapter 8 of Order (2) If the UAS does not meet the requirements for the certification requested, and the airworthiness certificate is denied, the FAA must (a) Write a letter to the applicant stating the reason(s) for denying the airworthiness certificate, and (b) Attach a copy of the denial letter to Form and forward it to AFS-750 to be made part of the aircraft record. 5. Flight Test Areas. a. Compliance. The assigned test area is prescribed in accordance with , Flight test areas. The FAA must evaluate each application to ensure the flight test area does not exceed that which is reasonably required to accomplish the program. Actions pertaining to flight test areas must be processed by or through AIR-200, who will then coordinate with AFS-407, the assigned MIDO/MISO and FSDO, and AJV-13. All flight test areas outside of restricted airspace must be coordinated through AIR-200 and approved by the FAA. Weather permitting, the applicant must perform a test fight immediately after the certificate is issued to allow the FAA to validate the flight test area. b. Assigned Flight Test Area Requirements. All UAS flight testing operations must be limited to the assigned flight test area. This is required until the aircraft is shown to be controllable throughout its normal range of speeds and execution of all maneuvers. In addition, the aircraft must not have demonstrated any hazardous operating characteristics or design NCRSASL - 183

194 11/28/ B features. The flight test area may or may not be expanded depending on the availability of an additional area that is remote and sparsely populated. (1) The FAA typically will assign a flight test area that has a defined perimeter. The shape of the perimeter can resemble a square, rectangle, or circle, or it could be multisided. The applicant will provide latitude and longitude coordinates for the flight test area. (2) In the case of flight testing an aircraft from an airport surrounded by a densely populated area (but with at least one acceptable approach/departure route of flight), the FAA must ensure a route of flight is selected that subjects the fewest persons and least amount property to possible hazards. The description of the area selected by the applicant and agreed to by the FAA must be made a part of the operating limitations. (3) In the case of an aircraft located at any airport surrounded by a densely populated area and lacking any acceptable approach/departure route of flight, the FAA must deny the airworthiness certificate; the FAA must write a letter to the applicant stating the reason(s) for denying the proposed flight test area. The applicant must be advised to relocate the aircraft to an airport suitable for flight testing. Note: An acceptable approach/departure route of flight may be considered to exist when the route of flight provides a reasonable opportunity to execute an off-airport emergency landing that will not jeopardize other persons or property. (4) The FAA must agree to the applicant s flight test area for conducting production flight tests of new production aircraft. This flight test area must be included in the applicant s program letter and must be made a part of the operating limitations. 6. Operating Limitations. Operating limitations must be designed to fit the specific situation and the specific objectives of the special airworthiness certificate under a. The ASI must review each imposed operating limitation with the applicant to ensure the applicant has a clear understanding of intent. Appendices A and B of this order provide sample operating limitations that must be prescribed for an experimental certificate, as applicable. Operating limitations must be coordinated either by, or through, AIR-200. b. Operating limitations can vary greatly from one UAS to the next based on system requirements and operating location. The manufacturing ASI, flight standards ASI, AFS-407, or AJV-13 may recommend any additional limitations deemed necessary in the interest of safety. These recommendations will be coordinated through AIR NCRSASL - 184

195 Section 3. Certification and Operation of Optionally Piloted Aircraft. 1. Manned Aircraft. Current UAS technology development projects include modifying manned aircraft. Today s advanced technology in control systems and software permits modifications to traditional flight controls that enable command of the aircraft to be affected from outside the cockpit. Control can be affected through a data link or preprogrammed into the aircraft s autopilot/flight management system. Two methods are described below. If other methods of controls exist, the FAA will evaluate their effectiveness and conduct a system safety assessment. a. For aircraft integrated with data link equipment and flown with a safety pilot onboard, remote control of the aircraft may be engaged or disengaged by the safety pilot. Once the system controls are engaged, the aircraft is controlled by a pilot operating the ground control station. Whether the system control is engaged or not, the pilot in command will always be the pilot sitting in the aircraft. b. The second method of control is by modifying the flight management system to permit flight plan programming before takeoff. Once engaged, the flight management system initiates the takeoff sequence, flies selected way points, and lands the aircraft without pilot intervention. This method includes a data link which can change way-points in flight from commands sent by a control station external to the aircraft in the event of a change of plans or emergency. 2. Safety Pilot. Both of the above mentioned capabilities include an onboard safety pilot for the purpose of overriding the system in the case of malfunction or any other hazardous situation. Ultimately, plans may include further research and development and removal of the safety pilot from the aircraft. If the OPA is operated without an onboard safety pilot, it is considered a UAS. 3. Opting out of the FAA Safety Evaluation. OPA operators that choose not to undergo a safety evaluation, as described in Chapter 3, Section 1, must always operate with an onboard pilot. Any remote control equipment installed on the aircraft must be removed. The only allowance for operating without an onboard pilot is during operations conducted solely in restricted airspace with the permission of the controlling agency. 4. Densely Populated Areas. AIR-200 may permit a one-time flight at an airport that is surrounded by a densely populated area if the onboard pilot is manually flying the aircraft and the equipment used for remote control operations is disengaged. 5. Certification Process. All traditional manned aircraft are eligible for consideration. When an applicant presents an OPA, the certification process used is similar to manned aircraft with the following exceptions. a. The FAA UAS experimental certification team will conduct a safety evaluation based on the procedures established in Chapter 3, Section 1, of this order. b. Operating limitations, as described in Order , will be coordinated with AIR-200 and issued by the manufacturing ASI. The sample OPA operating limitations included in Appendix B will be included, as necessary, in addition to those required by Order NCRSASL - 185

196 Appendix A. Sample Operating Limitations for Unmanned Aircraft Systems 800 Independence Ave, S.W. Washington, D.C Operating Limitations for Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Experimental Certificate or Special Flight Permit (select one) Registered Owner Name: [Insert Owner Name] Registered Owner Address: [Insert Address] Aircraft Description: [Insert Description] Aircraft Registration: [Insert Registration Number] Aircraft Builder: [Insert Builder Name] Year Manufactured: [Insert Year] Aircraft Serial Number: [Insert Serial Number] Aircraft Model Designation: [Insert Model Designation] Engine Model: [Insert Model Designation] The following conditions and limitations apply to all unmanned aircraft system (UAS) flight operations for the (name and model of UAS) while operating in the National Airspace System (NAS). 1. General Information. a. Integrated System. For the purposes of this special airworthiness certificate and operating limitations, the (name and model of UAS) operated by (individual or company name) is considered to be an integrated system. The system is composed of the following: (1) Name and model of the aircraft. (2) Serial number. (3) UAS control station(s), that is, fixed, mobile, ground-based, or airborne. (4) Telemetry, launch, and recovery equipment. NCRSASL - 186

197 (5) Communications and navigation equipment, including ground and/or air equipment used for command and control of the (name and model of UAS). (6) Equipment on the ground and in the air used for communication with the chase aircraft, other members of the flightcrew, observers, air traffic control (ATC), and other users of the NAS. b. Compliance with 14 CFR part 61 (Certification Pilots, Flight Instructors, and Ground Instructors) and part 91 (General Operating and Flight Rules). Unless otherwise specified in this document, the UA pilot-in-command (PIC) and (applicant name) must comply with all applicable sections and parts of 14 CFR including, but not limited to, parts 61 and 91. c. Operational Requirements. (1) No person may operate this UAS for other than the purpose of research and development, market survey, crew training, or production flight testing new production aircraft to accomplish the flight operation outlined in (applicant s name) program letter dated (include date), which describes compliance with 14 CFR , Experimental certificates: general, and, if required, , Issue of special flight permits. The program letter has been made available to the UA PIC. (2) While operating under an experimental certificate, this UAS must be operated in accordance with applicable air traffic and general operating rules of part 91 and all additional limitations herein prescribed under the provisions of , Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating limitations. (3) While conducting production flight test of new production aircraft, (Company name) must comply with applicable air traffic and general operating rules of part 91, and all procedures, requirements, and restrictions contained within this document. d. UA Condition. The UA PIC must determine that the UA is in a condition for safe operation, and in a configuration appropriate for the purpose of the intended flight. e. Multiple-Purpose Operations. When changing between operating purposes of a multiple purpose certificate, the operator must determine that the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation and appropriate for the purpose intended. A record entry will be made by an appropriately rated person (that is, an individual authorized by the applicant and acceptable to the FAA) to document that finding in the maintenance records. Multiple-purpose operations are not applicable to production flight testing conducted under a special flight permit. f. Operation Exceptions. While operating under an experimental certificate, no person may operate this UA to carry property for compensation or hire ( (a)(2)). g. UA Markings. (1) This UA must be marked with its U.S. registration number in accordance with 14 CFR part 45 or alternative marking approval issued by the FAA Production and Airworthiness Division (AIR-200). NCRSASL - 187

198 (2) This UA must display the word Experimental. h. Required Documentation. Immediately after the certificate is issued, (applicant name) must forward an electronic copy of the (name and model of UAS) program letter, special airworthiness certificate, and operating limitations to the (title of the appropriate FAA Air Traffic Organization (ATO) facility(ies)). The documents must be sent to the attention of (name), (title of ATO person), at ( address), or via fax at (fax number). AIR-200 will be included on this transmission. i. Change in Registrant Address. 14 CFR 47.45, Change of address, requires that the FAA Aircraft Registry be notified within 30 days of any change in the aircraft registrant s address. Such notification is to be made by providing AC Form , Aircraft Registration Application, to the FAA Aircraft Registration Branch (AFS-750) in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. j. Certificate Display and Manual Availability. The airworthiness and registration certificates must be displayed, and the aircraft flight manual must be available to the pilot, as prescribed by and 91.9, or as prescribed by an exemption granted in accordance with 14 CFR part 11, General Rulemaking Procedures. 2. Program Letter. The (name and model of UAS) program letter, dated (insert date), will be used as a basis for determining the operating limitations prescribed in this document. All operations must be conducted in accordance with the provisions of this document. 3. Initial Flight Testing for an Experimental Certificate. a. Requirements. Flight operations must be conducted within visual line of sight of the pilot/observer. Initial flight testing must be completed upon accumulation of (TBD) flight hours. Following satisfactory completion of initial flight testing, the operations manager or chief pilot must certify in the records that the aircraft has been shown to comply with (b). Compliance with (b) must be recorded in the aircraft records with the following, or a similarly worded, statement: I certify that the prescribed flight test hours have been completed and the aircraft is controllable throughout its normal range of speeds and throughout all maneuvers to be executed, has no hazardous operating characteristics or design features, and is safe for operation. The following aircraft operating data has been demonstrated during the flight testing: speeds Vx, and Vy, and the weight and CG location at which they were obtained. b. Aircraft Operations for the Purpose of Market Surveys, Sales Demonstrations, and Customer Crew Training. These operations cannot be performed until the flight hour requirements of (d)(2) have been accomplished. An entry in the maintenance records is required as evidence of compliance. NCRSASL - 188

199 4. Authorized Flight Operations Area. a. Description of the Authorized Flight Operations Area. This must include latitude and longitude and altitude dimensions, a map of the proposed flight operations area, and the base of operations for the UAS. (Applicant must provide appropriate graphics for insertion here.) b. Flight Conditions. All flight operations must be conducted during daylight hours in visual meteorological conditions with cloud clearance and flight visibility minimums as specified in Flight operation in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) is not permitted. c. Criteria for Remaining in the Flight Test Area. The UAS PIC must ensure all UA flight operations remain within the lateral and vertical boundaries of the flight test area. Furthermore, the UAS PIC must take into account all factors that may affect the capability of the UA to remain within the flight test area. This includes, but is not limited to, considerations for wind, gross weight, and glide distances. d. Incident/Accident Reporting. Any incident/accident and any flight operation that transgresses the lateral or vertical boundaries of the flight test area or any restricted airspace must be reported to the FAA within 24 hours. This information must be reported to the Unmanned Aircraft Program Office, AFS-407. AFS-407 can be reached by telephone at and fax at Accidents must be reported to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) per instructions contained on the NTSB website: Further flight operations must not be conducted until the incident is reviewed by AFS-407 and authorization to resume operations is provided to (applicant name). 5. UA Pilots and Observers. a. UA PIC Roles and Responsibilities. (1) The UA PIC must perform crew duties for only one UA at a time. (2) All flight operations must have a designated UA PIC. The UA PIC has responsibility over each flight conducted and is accountable for the UA flight operation. (3) The UA PIC is responsible for the safety of the UA as well as persons and property along the UA flight path. This includes, but is not limited to, collision avoidance and the safety of persons and property in the air and on the ground. (4) The UA PIC must avoid densely populated areas and exercise increased vigilance when operating in the vicinity of a congested airway in accordance with b. UA PIC Certification and Ratings Requirements. (1) The UA PIC must hold and be in possession of, at a minimum, an FAA private pilot certificate, with either an airplane, rotorcraft, or powered-lift category; with single- or multiengine class ratings, or the military equivalent, appropriate to the type of UA being operated. NCRSASL - 189

200 (2) The UA PIC must have and be in possession of a valid second-class (or higher) airman medical certificate issued under 14 CFR part 67, Medical Standards and Certification. c. UA PIC Currency, Flight Review, and Training. (1) The UA PIC must maintain currency in manned aircraft by accomplishing at least three takeoffs and three landings within the preceding 90 days while acting as the sole manipulator of the flight controls. (2) The UA PIC must have a flight review in manned aircraft every 24 calendar months in accordance with 61.56, Flight review. (3) The UA PIC must maintain currency in unmanned aircraft in accordance with (applicant name) company procedures. (4) The UA PIC must have a flight review in unmanned aircraft every 24 calendar months in accordance with (company name) procedures. (5) All UA PICs must have successfully completed applicable (applicant name) training for the UAS. d. Supplemental UA Pilot Roles and Responsibilities. (1) Any additional UA pilot(s) assigned to a crew station during UA flight operations will be considered a supplemental UA pilot. (2) A supplemental UA pilot assists the PIC in the operation of the UA and may do so at the same or a different control station as the PIC. The UA PIC will have operational override capability over any supplemental UA pilots, regardless of position, and must have immediate access to all controls. (3) A supplemental UA pilot must perform crew duties for only one UA at a time. e. Supplemental UA Pilot Certification. (1) Supplemental UA pilots must have, at a minimum, successfully completed private pilot ground school, or an FAA recognized equivalent. Additionally, supplemental pilots must have successfully passed the private pilot, commercial pilot, or airline transport pilot knowledge test within the past 24 calendar months. If a supplemental UA pilot assumes the role of PIC, then they must be a certificated pilot and meet the requirements listed above in 5a through 5c. (2) Supplemental pilots must have, and be in possession of, a valid second-class (or higher) airman medical certificate issued under 14 CFR part 67, Medical Standards and Certification. f. Supplemental UA Pilot Currency, Flight Review, and Training. (1) All supplemental UA pilots must maintain currency in unmanned aircraft in accordance with (applicant name) company procedures. NCRSASL - 190

201 (2) All supplemental UA pilots must have a flight review in unmanned aircraft every 24 calendar months in accordance with (company name) procedures. (3) All supplemental UA pilots must have successfully completed applicable (applicant name) training for the UAS. g. Observer Roles and Responsibilities. The task of the observer is to provide the PIC with instructions to maneuver the UA clear of any hazards and any potential collision with ground obstructions or air traffic. Additionally, the observer must assist the UA pilot to comply with the flight visibility and cloud clearance requirements of To satisfy these requirements (1) The observer must perform crew duties for only one UA at a time. (2) Visual observers must not allow the aircraft to operate beyond the visual line-of-sight limit. Observers must be able to see the aircraft and the surrounding airspace throughout the entire flight. Observers must be able to determine the UA s altitude, flight path, and proximity to all aviation activities and other hazards (e.g., terrain, weather, structures) sufficiently to comply with , and , and prevent the UA from creating a collision hazard. (3) An observer may be positioned in a chase aircraft. When a chase aircraft is used, it must maintain a reasonable proximity, and must position itself relative to the UA to reduce the hazard of collision in accordance with , Operating near other aircraft. When the observer is located in a chase aircraft, the observer s duties must be dedicated to the task of observation only. Concurrent duty as pilot of the chase aircraft is not authorized. (4) Observers must continually scan the airspace for other aircraft that pose a potential conflict. (5) All flight operations conducted in the flight test area must have an observer to perform traffic avoidance and visual observation to fulfill the see-and-avoid requirement of , Right-of-way rules: Except water operations. h. Observer Certification. (1) All observers must either hold, at a minimum, an FAA private pilot certificate or military equivalent, or must have successfully completed specific observer training acceptable to the FAA. An observer does not require currency as a pilot. (2) All observers must have, and be in possession of, a valid second-class (or higher) airman medical certificate issued under 14 CFR part 67, Medical Standards and Certification. i. Observer training. (1) All observers must be thoroughly trained to accomplish observer roles and responsibilities. All observers must be familiar with, and possess operational experience with the equipment being used. Such training is necessary for observation and detection of other aircraft for collision avoidance purposes as outlined in (applicant name) program letter. NCRSASL - 191

202 (2) All observers must have successfully completed applicable (applicant name) training for the UAS. 6. Equipage. a. Transponder. (1) The UA must operate with a transponder that meets the performance and environmental requirements of any class of TSO-C74d or TSO-C112, to include altitude reporting, during all flight operations. If the transponder is Mode S capable, it must have an appropriately assigned International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) 24-bit address based on the UA s assigned registration number. (2) While performing chase operations with the UA, chase aircraft transponders must be on standby unless otherwise directed by ATC. b. Transponder Failure. (1) In the event of transponder failure on either the UA or the chase aircraft, the UA must conclude all flight operations and expeditiously return to its base of operations within the prescribed limitations of this authorization. (2) In the event of UA transponder failure, a chase aircraft will operate its transponder in Mode C. c. Aircraft Lights. The UA and chase aircraft must be equipped with operable navigation, position, and/or strobe/anti-collision lights. Strobe/anti-collision lights must be illuminated during all operations. 7. Air Traffic Control Provisions. a. ATC Coordination. (1) (Applicant name) must request a distance (D) NOTAM be issued for UA operations. Coordinate the NOTAM through the local base operations or (Name) Flight Service Station at not more than 72 hours in advance, but not less than 24 hours prior to the operation. (2) At least 2 hours before each UA flight, (applicant name) must contact the (name) Air Traffic Control facility at (phone number), and advise the following: (a) Location of the test flight area (latitude and longitude coordinates). (b) The Notice to Airman (NOTAM) number. (c) The planned time for commencing and terminating UA operation(s). (d) A point of contact name and phone number who will be attending the operation(s). NCRSASL - 192

203 b. ATC Communications. (1) After takeoff, upon initial contact with ATC, the UA PIC must indicate the experimental nature in accordance with (2) Appropriate ATC frequencies must be monitored during flight operations. 8. Communications. a. Before conducting operations, the frequency spectrum used for operation and control of the UA must be approved by the Federal Communications Commission or other appropriate government oversight agency. b. All UA positions must maintain two-way communications with each other during all operations. If unable to maintain two-way communication, the UA PIC will expeditiously return the UA to its base of operations while remaining within the flight test area and conclude the flight operation. 9. Flight Prohibitions. a. The UA is prohibited from aerobatic flight, that is, an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in the UA s attitude, an abnormal acceleration, or other flight action not necessary for normal flight. (See , Aerobatic flight.) If aerobatic flight is anticipated, it must be thoroughly discussed during the system review and be appropriately described in the operating limitations. b. Flight operations must not involve carrying hazardous material or the dropping of any objects or external stores. c. Each UA must be operated by only one control station at a time. A control station may not be used to operate multiple UAs. 10. Flight Termination and Lost Link Procedures. a. Flight Termination. Flight termination must be initiated at any point that safe operation of the UA cannot be maintained or if hazard to persons or property is imminent. b. Lost Link Procedures. In the event of lost link, the UA must provide a means of automatic recovery that ensures airborne operations are predictable and that the UA remains within the flight test area. The chase aircraft or observer, all other UAS control stations, and the appropriate ATC facility must be immediately notified of the lost link condition and the expected UA response. Comply with the following provisions: (1) If lost link occurs within a restricted or warning area, or the lost link procedure takes the UA into a restricted or warning area, the aircraft will not exit the restricted or warning area until the link is re-established. (2) The UA lost link mission will not transit or orbit over populated areas. NCRSASL - 193

204 (3) Lost link programmed procedures will avoid unexpected turn-around and/or altitude changes and will provide sufficient time to communicate and coordinate with ATC. (4) Lost link orbit points will not coincide with the centerline of published airways. 11. Inspection and Maintenance. a. General Requirements. The UAS must not be operated unless it is inspected and maintained in accordance with the (applicant name and name of procedures), (State applicable sections and effective date) or later accepted FAA revision. (Applicant name) must establish and maintain aircraft maintenance records in accordance with paragraph 11d. b. Inspections. No person may operate this UAS within the preceding 12 calendar months unless it has had a condition inspection performed according to the FAA-accepted (applicant name) Inspection and Maintenance Program. The UAS must also have been found to be in a condition for safe operation. This inspection will be recorded in the UAS maintenance records as described in paragraph 11d. c. Authorized Inspectors. Only those individuals trained and authorized by (applicant name) and acceptable to the FAA may perform the inspections and maintenance required by these operating limitations. d. Inspection and Maintenance Records. Inspections and maintenance of the UAS must be recorded in the UAS maintenance records. The following information must be recorded: (1) Inspection entries must contain the following, or a similarly worded, statement: I certify that this UAS was inspected on (date), in accordance with the scope and detail of the (applicant name) Inspection and Maintenance Program, and was found to be in a condition for safe operation. (2) Maintenance record entries must include a description of the work performed, the date of completion for the work, the UAS s total time-in-service, and the name and signature of the person performing the work. (3) UAS instruments and equipment required to be installed must be inspected and maintained in accordance with the requirements of the (applicant name) Inspection and Maintenance Program. Any maintenance or inspection of this equipment must be recorded in the UAS maintenance records. (4) No person may operate this UAS unless the altimeter system and transponder have been tested within the preceding 24 calendar months in accordance with , Altimeter system and altitude reporting equipment tests and inspections, and , ATC transponder tests and inspections. These inspections will be recorded in the UAS maintenance records. 12. Information Reporting. (Insert company name) will provide the following information to (insert name and contact information) on a monthly basis. (Contact name and information must be provided at the time the certificate is issued.) NCRSASL - 194

205 a. Number of flights conducted under this certificate. b. Pilot duty time per flight. c. Unusual equipment malfunctions (hardware or software). d. Deviations from ATC instructions. e. Unintended entry into lost link flight mode that results in a course change. 13. Revisions and Other Provisions. a. Experimental Certificates, Special Flight Permits, Program Letters, and Operating Limitations. The [experimental certificate, special flight permit (select one)], FAA-accepted (applicant name) program letter, and operating limitations cannot be reissued, renewed, or revised without application being made to the (manufacturing inspection district office (MIDO) name), in coordination with AIR-200. AIR-200 will be responsible for FAA Headquarters internal coordination with the Aircraft Certification Service, Flight Standards Service, Air Traffic Organization, Office of the Chief Counsel, and Office of Rulemaking. b. Certificates of Waiver or Authorization. (Applicant name) will immediately notify the Production and Airworthiness Division, AIR-200, and the (manufacturing inspection district office (MIDO) name), if there is any plan for requesting a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) for UAS operations during the time the experimental certificate is in effect. An entry in the aircraft logbook is required to document that the aircraft flight authority has been changed from the experimental certificate to COA. When COA operations are concluded and the aircraft resumes flying under the experimental certificate, a record entry will be made in the aircraft logbook by an appropriately rated person. This entry will document that the aircraft is in a condition for safe operation and appropriately configured. c. Amendments and Cancellations. The provisions and limitations annotated in this operational approval may be amended or cancelled at any time as deemed necessary by the FAA. d. Reviews of Revisions. All revisions to (applicant name) FAA-accepted Inspection and Maintenance Program must be reviewed and accepted by the (Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) name. 14. UAS Modifications. a. Software and System Changes. All software and system changes will be documented as part of the normal maintenance procedures and will be available for inspection. All software and system changes must be inspected and approved per (applicant name) maintenance program dated (insert date). All software changes to the aircraft and control station are categorized as major changes, and must be provided in summary form at the time they are incorporated. b. Major Modifications. All major modifications, whether performed under the experimental certificate, COA, or other authorizations, that could potentially affect the safe operation of the system, must be documented and provided to the FAA before operating the NCRSASL - 195

206 11/28/ B Appendix A aircraft under this certificate. Major modifications incorporated under COA or other authorizations need to be provided only if the aircraft is flown under these authorizations during the effective period of the experimental certificate. c. Submission of Modifications. All information requested must be provided to AIR-200. End of Limitations. /s/ (Name) Aviation Safety Inspector (Name of MIDO) (Issuing office address) (City, State Zip Code) Date: I certify that I have read and understand the operating limitations and conditions that are a part of the special airworthiness certificate, FAA Form , issued on (date), for the purposes of [research and development, market survey, crew training, or production flight testing new production aircraft (enter as applicable)]. This special airworthiness certificate is issued for (name and model of UAS), serial number (xxx), registration number (xxx). Applicant (signature) Date: Name (Printed): Title: Company: A-11 NCRSASL - 196

207 Appendix B. Sample Operating Limitations for Optionally Piloted Aircraft 1. Applicability. The following limitations apply only to optionally piloted aircraft (OPA) and will be issued to supplement operating limitations issued under an experimental certificate as described in FAA Order , Airworthiness Certification of Aircraft and Related Products. The aviation safety inspector (ASI) may include these limitations as an addendum to, or amend directly into, operating limitations issued under Order When an OPA is operated without a pilot onboard, operating limitations for UAS will be issued in accordance with the procedures described in this order. 2. OPA Limitations. a. The aircraft cannot be operated without an onboard pilot while operating as a civil aircraft in the National Airspace System. The only time an OPA may operate without a pilot onboard is during operations conducted solely in restricted airspace, with the permission of the controlling agency. The pilot onboard is considered to be the pilot in command (PIC). b. The PIC will hold, at a minimum, an FAA private pilot certificate. Additionally, the PIC will hold, at a minimum, a valid FAA Class 2 medical certificate and have it in his/her possession. c. The PIC will have the ability to immediately override any installed system that can be operated remotely or by automation. d. The system will not impede the pilot from overriding or otherwise controlling the aircraft using normal control input forces. e. There may be no specific geographic limitation when the aircraft is to be flown entirely by an onboard pilot unless otherwise specified in the operating limitations. f. The identified flight test area is approved for the (applicant name) to conduct operations using the system with a pilot onboard: (1) As described in section (annotate section/paragraph of operating limitations), the (list applicant or aircraft name or registration number) is restricted to the identified flight test area for an initial period of no less than 10 flight hours and a minimum of 5 takeoff and landings (may be modified, as required). (2) After satisfying the initial limitation described above, there is no further geographic limitation. g. Any changes or requests for additional flight test areas must be reviewed and approved by AIR-200, AFS-407, AJV-13, and the responsible manufacturing inspection district office (MIDO). h. Engaging the system and initiating direct or indirect control (see definition in Appendix F) of the aircraft, while the PIC is onboard, can only be accomplished while the aircraft is in the flight test area. Downlink of telemetry data is usually not restricted unless limited by the FCC or another agency. NCRSASL - 197

208 11/28/ B Appendix B i. The system may only be engaged or used while the aircraft is at or above XXXX feet above ground level (AGL). The system must be turned off or otherwise rendered inoperative below XXXX feet AGL. j. The system may only be engaged or used during daylight hours and in visual meteorological conditions (VMC) with minimum flight visibility no less than three statute miles below 10,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) and five statute miles at or above 10,000 feet MSL. The system is not authorized for use under special VFR, or in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). If the system is disabled or rendered inoperative, an OPA may be allowed to operate in IMC under instrument flight rules (IFR) provided that the PIC is IFR current, and the aircraft is suitably equipped for IFR flight in accordance with 14 CFR k. The system is not authorized for use during takeoff or landing. l. Operations under direct control or indirect control will be authorized on a case-by-case basis as determined by the FAA team. m. The system will not be operated over congested areas, heavily trafficked roads, or an open-air assembly of persons. End of Limitations. B-2 NCRSASL - 198

209 Appendix C. Sample Program Letter for Unmanned Aircraft Systems or Optionally Piloted Aircraft: Experimental Certificate and/or a Special Flight Permit Registered Owner Name: [Enter Owner Name] Registered Owner Address: [Enter Owner Address] Aircraft Description: [Enter Description] Aircraft Registration: [Enter Registration Number] Aircraft Builder: [Enter Builder Name] Year Manufactured: [Enter Year] Aircraft Serial Number: [Enter Serial Number] Aircraft Model Designation: [Enter Model Designation] Engine Model: [Enter Model Designation] Propeller Model: [Enter Model Designation] 1. Overview of Project. The applicant must provide a general explanation and overview of the project, indicating any past flight history or experience for consideration. The applicant must provide enough detail for the FAA to understand the program s purpose and need for an experimental certificate and/or a special flight permit. a. Definition of the Experimental Purpose. Provide a definition of the experimental purpose(s) under which the aircraft is to be operated (14 CFR , Experimental certificates). b. Description of the Purpose/Scope of the Experimental Program. Provide a description of the purpose/scope of the experimental program for each experimental purpose sought ( (b) and (d), Experimental certificates: general). c. Description of the Purpose/Scope of the Special Flight Permit Program. Provide the purpose of the flight. Include all information required by (a), Issue of special flight permits. 2. Definition of Flight Areas. Provide a definition of the area(s) in which the experimental flights and, if applicable, production flight testing will be conducted. Indicate whether or not the same flight test area will be used for both purposes. Include the following: a. The areas over which the flights are requested to be conducted and the address of base operation ( (d)(3)). NCRSASL - 199

210 b. The proposed flight test area using latitude and longitude on an aeronautical chart or aerial photograph. For example, if the perimeter of the proposed flight test area is in the shape of a rectangle, the latitude and longitude of the corners must be stated. The distance of each leg of the perimeter must be stated. c. Airspeed and altitude operating parameters, number of flight hours, number of flights, and program duration for each flight test area. d. Class of airspace to be used. e. Whether minimum fuel requirements of 14 CFR , Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions, will be met. f. Whether flight testing will include payload testing. If so, describe the payload and its operation. g. Considerations that need to be taken into account regarding payloads. h. Whether the aircraft will perform any aerobatic maneuvers as defined by i. Flight rules and weather conditions, for example, VFR and visual meteorological conditions (VMC). 3. Aircraft Configuration. Attach three-view drawings or three-view dimensioned photographs of the aircraft (see (d)(4)). Describe any ground support equipment (power carts, air carts, towing equipment, etc.) required for aircraft operations. Include a description of aircraft/system performance characteristics including the following: a. Wing span. b. Length. c. Powerplant. d. Maximum gross takeoff weight. e. Fuel capacity. f. Payload capacity. g. Maximum altitude. h. Endurance. i. Maximum airspeed. j. Control/data frequencies. k. Guidance and navigation control. NCRSASL - 200

211 4. Inspection and Maintenance (14 CFR part 91 General Operating and Flight Rules, Subpart E Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, and Alterations). a. Description of the Program. Describe the inspection and maintenance program that will be used to maintain the aircraft and related systems, including ground stations and/or other support systems. b. Required Documentation. Provide a copy of the flight manual, if applicable; current weight and balance report; and equipment list. 5. Pilot Qualification (14 CFR 61.3, Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations, and 14 CFR 61.5, Certificates and ratings issued under this part). a. Pilot Qualifications. Describe the qualifications for each pilot. b. Pilot Certifications. Pilots must be qualified/certificated in the appropriate category of aircraft, that is, rotorcraft, powered lift, and airplane. c. Pilot Training. Describe the internal training program to qualify pilots. d. Supplemental Pilots. Describe whether supplemental pilots will be used for the operation. Describe how supplemental pilots will be used. Describe the company s internal training program for supplemental pilots. Describe company procedures and requirements for maintaining currency and conducting a flight review for supplemental pilots. e. Qualifications and Training of Observers. Describe the qualifications and training of observers. Observer training is required for observers to communicate to the pilot any instructions required to remain clear of conflicting traffic. Acceptable observer training as a minimum must include, but is not limited to, knowledge about the following (1) The rules and responsibilities described in (Operating near other aircraft), (Right-of-way rules: Except water operations), and (Basic VFR weather minimums); (2) Air traffic and radio communications, including the use of approved ATC/pilot phraseology; and (3) Appropriate sections of the Aeronautical Information Manual. 6. Identification and Registration Marking (14 CFR part 45). All UAS and OPA are required to be registered and identified with the registration number. Aircraft must be marked in accordance with part 45 or alternative marking approval issued by AIR-200. NCRSASL - 201

212 11/28/ B Appendix C 7. ATC Transponder and Altitude Reporting Equipment and Use ( ). Describe the aircraft altitude reporting system. 8. Method for See-and-Avoid ( ). Describe in what manner, or by what means, the requirement to see-and-avoid other aircraft will be met. Describe the expected performance of the chase plane. 9. Safety Risk Management. Provide a safety checklist that identifies and analyzes the hazards of UAS or OPA operations described in the program letter. (See a sample safety checklist in appendix D to this order.) Additional information is available by contacting the FAA Aviation Safety Inspector. 10. System Configuration. Provide a description of the ground and airborne equipment used to allow direct or indirect control of the UAS or OPA. 11. System Safety Flight Termination and Lost Link. Describe/explain the expectation of aircraft flight if fuel is starved. Describe/explain aircraft lost link and emergency recovery procedures. Provide an explanation of the flight termination system in detail. 12. Command and Control. Provide a description of the system and/or procedures for command and control of the UAS or OPA. 13. Control Stations. Provide a description of the ground/airborne stations used to control the UAS or OPA. 14. Control Frequencies. Provide a description/listing of the frequencies used to control the UAS or OPA. C-4 NCRSASL - 202

213 Appendix D: Safety Checklist 1. Introduction. The safety checklist is designed to help the FAA evaluate those hazards that are unique to UAS or OPA in support of issuing an experimental certificate. Some safety items only require brief responses and others may not be applicable to a specific program. Additional questions and supporting documentation will be required during the evaluation process. The safety checklist replaces any previous requirement for a hazard analysis. The FAA intends to update the safety checklist as we gain more experience. 2. Aircraft Segment. a. Airframe. (1) Structure. Describe in detail the physical characteristics of the UA. Include diagrams and schematics, as necessary. (2) Composition. Describe the various materials and where they are used in the construction of the UA. Include details of the fabrication and construction processes and procedures. (3) Describe the capability of the airframe structure to withstand expected flight loads and provide data/analysis to show that it is flutter-free throughout the flight envelope. Include any loads or stress analysis that demonstrates positive structural margins of safety during flight. (4) Identify and describe any unique design characteristic(s) such as a hydraulic system, environmental control system, parachute, or brakes. (5) Measurements. (a) Wingspan. (b) Fuselage length. (c) Body diameter. (6) Weight. (a) Empty. (b) Maximum gross takeoff weight. b. UA Performance Characteristics. Describe the performance of the aircraft within the proposed flight envelope. Specifically, address the following items: (1) Maximum altitude. (2) Maximum endurance. NCRSASL - 203

214 (3) Maximum range. (4) Airspeed. (a) Cruise. (b) Maximum. (5) Maximum rate of climb. (6) Maximum rate of descent. (7) Maximum bank angle. (8) Turn rate limits. (9) Identify any performance limitations due to environmental and meteorological conditions. Specifically, address the following items: (a) Wind speed limitations. i. Headwind. ii. Crosswind. iii. Gusts. (b) Turbulence restrictions. (c) Minimum visibility conditions. (d) Lighting (for example, daytime flights only). (e) Outside air temperature (OAT) limits. (f) In-flight icing. conditions? i. Does the proposed operating environment include operations in icing ii. Does the system have an icing detection capability? If so, what indications, if any, does the system provide the UA pilot, and how does the system respond? iii. Describe any icing protection capability of the UA. Include any test data that demonstrates the performance of the icing protection system. NCRSASL - 204

215 c. Propulsion System. (1) Describe the propulsion system and its ability to provide reliable and sufficient power to takeoff, climb, and maintain flight at expected mission altitudes. (2) Fuel-powered propulsion systems. (a) What type (make and model) of engine is used? (b) What type and capacity of fuel is used? (c) How is engine performance monitored? What status indicators and warning messages are provided to the pilot? (d) Describe all potential failure modes and abnormal operating conditions. (e) How does the system respond, and what safeguards are in place to mitigate the risk of engine power loss for each of the following? i. Fuel starvation. ii. Fuel contamination. iii. Failed signal input from the control station. iv. Engine controller failure. (f) Does the engine have in-flight restart capabilities? If so, describe the manual and/or automatic features of this capability. (3) Electric-powered propulsion systems. (a) What type of motor is used? (b) What is the power output of the motor? (c) What current draw range does the motor have? managed? (d) Does the system have a separate electrical source? If not, how is UA power d. Fuel System. Describe the fuel system and how it allows for adequate control of the fuel delivery to the engine, and provides for aircrew determination of fuel remaining. Provide a system level diagram showing the location of the system in the aircraft and the fuel flow path. NCRSASL - 205

216 e. Electrical System. (1) Describe the electrical system and how it distributes adequate power to meet the requirements of the receiving systems. Provide a system level diagram showing electrical power distribution throughout the aircraft. Specifically, address the following items: (2) How is power generated onboard the aircraft (for example, generator, alternator, batteries)? (a) If a limited life power source such as batteries is used, what is the useful life of the power source during normal and emergency conditions? How was this determined? pilot? (b) How are electrical power status and power remaining information displayed to the (3) Describe the source(s) of backup power in the event of loss of the primary power source. (a) What systems are powered during backup power operation? (b) Is there any automatic or manual load shedding? (c) How much operational time does the backup power source provide? Include the assumptions used to make this determination. (4) Describe the electrical distribution architecture including all busses, regulators, switches, and converters. f. Flight Control Surfaces and Actuators. (1) Describe the design and operation of the flight control surfaces and servos/actuators. Include a diagram showing the location of the control surfaces and servos/actuators. (2) Describe any potential failure modes and corresponding mitigations. (3) How does the system respond to a servo failure? (4) What indications alert the pilot that a servo is stuck or malfunctioning? g. Payloads. Describe the payload equipment that will fly onboard the aircraft. Describe all payload configurations that significantly change weight and balance, electrical loads, or flight dynamics. (1) Internal. (2) External. NCRSASL - 206

217 3. Control and Communications Segment. a. Avionics. Provide an overall system diagram of the avionics architecture. Include the location of all air data sensors, antennas, radios, and navigation equipment. b. Navigation. (1) How does the UA determine where it is? How does it navigate to its intended destination? (2) How does the pilot respond to the following directions from Air Traffic Control, a visual observer, or other crew member? (a) Change of aircraft heading. (b) Change of aircraft altitude. (3) What are the causes and effects of loss of heading or altitude? (4) How does the system identify and respond to a loss of the primary means of navigation? Is there a backup means of navigation? How does the system respond to a loss of the secondary means of navigation? (5) Describe the procedures to test the altimeter system (see ). c. UA Flight Controls. (1) Describe how the control surfaces respond to commands from the flight control computer. (2) Describe how the pilot provides input to the control surfaces (for example, through an external box, waypoint, stick, and rudder pedals). (3) Flight control computer. (a) Does the flight control computer interface with auxiliary controls that might cause an unintended action? (b) Describe the flight control computer interfaces required to determine flight status and to issue appropriate commands. d. Autopilot. (1) How was the autopilot system developed? What industry or regulatory standards were used in the development process? (2) Is the autopilot a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) product? If so, name the type/manufacturer and provide the criteria that was used in selecting the system. NCRSASL - 207

218 (3) Describe the procedures you use to install the autopilot. How is correct installation verified? Reference any documents or procedures provided by the manufacturer and/or developed by your company. (4) Does the autopilot employ input limit parameters to keep the aircraft within structural limits? If so, provide a table of these limits. How were these limits validated? (5) Where do the autopilot commands reside once they are input by the pilot? (6) What type of software-in-the-loop (SIL) and hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) simulations have been performed? What was the outcome of the simulations? e. Communications. (1) Provide a detailed communication system architecture diagram that includes functional flows and subsystem performance (that is, data rates and latencies). (2) Describe the communications datalink(s) connecting the UA and the control station. Specifically address the following items: (a) What spectrum will be used for the communications and how has the use of this spectrum been coordinated? If spectrum approval is not required, under what regulation is the use of the frequency authorized? (b) What type of signal processing and/or link security (that is, encryption) is employed? (c) What is the data link margin in terms of the overall link budget at the maximum anticipated distance from the control station? How was it determined? (d) Is there a radio signal strength and/or health indicator or similar display to the pilot? How is the signal strength and health value determined and what are the threshold values that represent a critically degraded signal? (e) Does the system employ redundant and/or independent communications links? If so, how dissimilar are they? (f) For satellite links, estimate the system communications latencies associated with using the satellite link for aircraft control and for air traffic control (ATC) communications. (g) What are the potential sources of radio frequency (RF) interference within the proposed operating area and how are they monitored, managed and/or mitigated? (3) What design characteristics or procedures are in place to prevent or mitigate the loss of the control datalink due to the following: (a) RF or other interference? (b) Flight beyond communications range? NCRSASL - 208

219 (c) Antenna masking during turns and pitch angles? (d) Loss of control station functionality? (e) Loss of UA functionality? (f) Atmospheric attenuation including precipitation? f. Lost Link and Flight Recovery. (1) Lost link. (a) How is it determined that the UA is experiencing lost link and how is this displayed to the pilot? (b) Describe the operational procedures in the event of a lost link. (c) Describe how the aircraft will react during takeoff, climb, cruise, descent, and landing in the event of a lost link. (d) How is it determined that the lost link functionality of the system is operational? (e) How does the UA navigate when in the lost link mode? (f) What parameters are used to define the lost link or return home point? How is this point selected? How is this point entered? What happens when the UA reaches this point? activated? (g) Under what conditions is a return home mode both manually and automatically (h) What do the control station displays indicate during lost link? Is it clear that the data is stale or invalid? (2) Flight recovery system (FRS). (a) Describe the FRS or flight recovery capability of the UA. (b) Under what conditions is an FRS manually and automatically activated? (c) What happens to the aircraft when the FRS is activated? For example, does the engine run temporarily? Does the UA glide or become unstable? (d) How do you know that the FRS is operational? (e) Provide a fault tree diagram, starting with the initial condition of normal flight that shows the conditions which will trigger the FRS. (f) If activated, can the FRS be turned off/shut down if no longer required? NCRSASL - 209

220 (g) If FRS fails, is there a backup or secondary FRS to ensure that no additional hazards are introduced to the operational area? g. Control Station. (1) Describe or diagram the control station configuration, including functional flows. Include screen captures of the control station displays. flight? (2) Does the pilot have a standardized screen set up at the initiation of each phase of (3) How accurately can the pilot determine the attitude and position of the UA? (4) What commands are safeguarded from inadvertent activation and how is that achieved (for example, a two step process to command kill engine )? (5) What kind of inadvertent input could the pilot enter to cause an undesirable outcome (for example, accidentally hitting the kill engine command in flight)? (6) Are any other programs running concurrently on the ground control computer? If so, what precautionary measures are used to ensure that flight-critical processing will not be adversely affected? (7) What are the possible conditions that would cause a control position lock-up? (8) Are any of the primary flight controls based on the Windows operating system? (9) What alarms or warnings does the system provide to the pilot (for example, low fuel or battery, failure of critical systems, departure from operational boundary)? (10) Describe the means of providing primary and backup power to the ground control station. (11) What procedures are in place should the control station lose primary and secondary power? 4. Ground Support Equipment. Describe all the support equipment that is used on the ground. Include any launch or recovery systems, ground data terminals, generators, and power supplies. 5. Processes and Procedures. a. Configuration Management. (1) What procedures are in place to manage change configuration? Is it documented? (2) Describe the procedures used for controlling drawings, test procedures, engineering changes, etc. NCRSASL - 210

221 (3) Describe the quality assurance system, methods and procedures used, and structure within the organization. b. Software Management. (1) Describe what software functions were developed by the applicant or the applicant s suppliers, and what functions are implemented by COTS software. (2) What software development process(es) have been used in the development of software components for the aircraft and the ground control station, and what software lifecycle data is available for review? (3) How will updates to system software (including COTS software) be implemented? (4) Describe the functions of the system and the allocation between software and hardware. (5) Describe how the software requirements are validated and how the software is verified. (6) For aspects of software development that are allocated to suppliers, describe the process of supplier oversight. (7) How is software load control implemented for the system to ensure that the correct software components are loaded onto the system? (8) What software quality assurance processes are used in the development of the system software? How are suppliers a part of the process? (9) Is there a system for reporting and tracking problems? How are suppliers integrated into the problem reporting system? (10) What procedures are in place to manage configuration changes? How are they documented? (11) What programming language(s) are used? (12) What requirements standards, design standards, and coding standards are used in the software development process? What ensures that the standards are followed? c. Electronic Hardware Design and Testing. (1) Describe the standards and processes used to design, test, and modify electronic hardware system elements such as line replaceable units, circuit board assemblies, and COTS components. (2) How are safety critical hardware components considered in the design, test, and modification processes described above relative to non-safety critical hardware components? NCRSASL - 211

222 6. Operations. a. National Airspace System (NAS) Integration and Interaction. (1) Surveillance and Aircraft Visibility. (a) Is the UA equipped with TSO approved Mode-C or Mode-S transponder? If yes, under what TSO and Class of equipment was the transponder approved? (b) Is the UA equipped with a non-tso approved Mode-C or Mode-S transponder? If yes, describe the method used to determine that the transponder meets the performance and environment requirements of any class of TSO-C74d (Mode C) or TSO-C112 (Mode S). Highlight any TSO deviations or non-tso functions. (c) What functions and/or settings of the transponder can be changed by the pilot? (d) Describe the transponder test procedures (Reference ). (e) Does the UA have a high-visibility paint scheme that enables other pilots to see and avoid the UA and enables the observer(s) to visually acquire and track the UA? (f) What characteristics of the aircraft shape or structure increase its ability to be seen and tracked? (g) Does the UA have anti-collision lights? Does the UA have position lights? What are the procedures if the lights are inoperative? (h) For OPA, does the cockpit have instrument and cockpit lighting? (2) Air traffic control and crewmember communications. (a) How does the pilot communicate with ATC? (b) How does the pilot communicate with other users of the airspace? (c) Describe the communications equipment (that is, radios), including any equipment on the aircraft. (d) Is there an intercommunication system that allows for communication between the pilot(s), ground support personnel, crewmembers, and observers? (e) What procedures have been established in the event of intercom failure? (3) Sense and avoid. (a) Describe the method(s) in place for sense and avoid, and if applicable, identify the members of the flightcrew that hold this responsibility. (b) What are the minimum traffic detection capabilities in azimuth and elevation? NCRSASL - 212

223 (c) Describe the procedures that will be implemented should an aircraft enter the operating area. (4) Chase aircraft operations. (a) Describe the roles and responsibilities of the chase aircraft crew. Note: Chase aircraft pilots must not concurrently perform either observer or UA pilot duties while operating the chase aircraft. i. Pilot. ii. Observers. (b) Describe any special training that the chase aircraft crew will receive. b. Flight Phases. (1) Preflight/taxi operations. (a) Describe the entire flight planning process, including how weather briefings and updates are obtained. (b) Describe your coordination procedures with ATC before takeoff by addressing at a minimum: i. Notices to Airmen (NOTAM). ii. Filing the flight plan. iii. Transponder codes. (c) Describe UAS preflight activities and the system and support equipment required by addressing at a minimum: i. The process by which the system is prepared for flight. ii. The systems required to prepare the system for flight. iii. What critical process points are established, such as system configuration files needed to establish flight controls calibration? (d) Describe how mapping updates are performed on the control station. (e) Describe the flightline/operations safety program, if any. (f) How do you ensure the area is clear for taxi? NCRSASL - 213

224 (g) Describe the procedures to ensure the engine isn t started in a manner that could cause injury to ground personnel. (2) Take off/launch. Provide a description of system equipment required for this operation. Identify unique system performance and procedures. (3) Flight. (a) Identify the components of the system, including support equipment that is required for the UA to conduct safe flight operations. Information presented in response to this item shall address at a minimum: i. The process by which the system is operated during flight. ii. The systems required to operate the system during flight. iii. Critical process points that are established. (b) Describe the method for switching between pilot-controlled (manual) and autonomous flight modes. At what points during the flight will this happen? (c) What indication does the pilot have that they are in control of the aircraft? (d) For OPA, describe how the remote control equipment will be engaged and disengaged during ground and flight operations. (e) How are changes made to the flight plan during flight? (f) Describe the procedures in the event of lost communication with ATC (if applicable). (4) Landing/recovery. Provide a description of system equipment required for this operation. Identify unique system performance and procedures. (5) Post flight. (a) This subsection intends to identify the parts of the system, including support equipment required for the UAS to conduct safe operations. Information presented in response to this item shall address at a minimum: i. The process by which the system is operated post-flight. ii. The systems required to operate the system post-flight. iii. Critical process points that are established. (b) Describe the process for a post-flight inspection. (c) Describe the process for incident/accident reporting. NCRSASL - 214

225 c. Operating Areas. (1) How do you ensure that there is no unusual ground activity under the flight operations area? For example, are there any weekend events scheduled? Are there housing areas or public gathering places? (2) Identify any military or civilian routes through the proposed operational area. (3) Identify the proposed operating area on an aeronautical chart. The proposed area needs to define lateral boundaries and requested altitudes. d. Flight Envelope and Test Plans. (1) Describe the conditions under which flight envelopes will be tested. How close will operations be to any populated areas and major highways? (2) Describe how you plan to meet test objectives under the proposed flight envelope and operating area. Include test plans, if possible. e. Operating History. Describe the operational history of the UAS. Include details of the following items: (1) Total number of flights and flight hours on the UA. (2) Any system failures, incidents, accidents, or emergencies, and the resultant system modifications or corrective actions. f. Manuals. (1) Is there an operating manual for the aircraft? (2) Does the manual have a section with all of the aircraft limitations in one location? (3) Does the operating manual have bolded or underlined procedures for emergencies for memory item steps? (4) Is there an operational checklist for all phases of the operation? (5) Are there separate checklist items for normal, abnormal, or emergency procedures? 7. Organizational Considerations. a. Pilot/Crew Qualifications/Training Reference: 14 CFR part 61 Certification: pilots, flight instructors, and ground instructors; part 63 Certification: flight crewmembers other than pilots; part 65 Certification: airmen other than flight crewmembers. (1) Crew. Is there a crew resource management training program? If so, describe the program. NCRSASL - 215

226 (2) Pilot. (a) Do the pilots have a current pilot certificate? If so, what type of pilot certificate? (b) Do the pilots have a current medical certificate? If so, what class of medical certificate? (c) Describe in detail and reference any procedures that show that the pilots are properly trained. (d) Is there an established formal training curriculum for all pilots including PIC, supplemental, or chase pilots(s)? (e) Is the pilot type rated for the aircraft being flown? (3) Observer. (a) Do the observers have a current pilot certificate? If so, what type of pilot certificate? (b) Do the observers have a current medical certificate? If so, what class of medical certificate? (c) Does the observer understand the applicable aviation regulations such as see and avoid, clear of clouds, and right of way rules? (d) Is the observer a current pilot or have a training curriculum? Is there an established formal training curriculum for all observers? If so, please provide it during the site visit. (e) Describe, in detail, how the observer is properly trained to be an effective member of the flight team. (f) Does the observer understand i. Proper communications and phraseology? ii. Proper visual scan techniques? iii. Standard flight operations at non-towered airports? that area? iv. Containment areas and how to determine whether the UA is operating within b. Maintenance. (1) Provide an inspection and maintenance program similar in scope and detail as 14 CFR part 43, Appendix D. NCRSASL - 216

227 11/28/ B Appendix D (2) Provide information on unique system maintenance activities, such as maintenance of a pneumatic launcher system. End of Safety Checklist D-15 NCRSASL - 217

228 Appendix E. Administrative Information 1. Distribution. This order is distributed to the Washington headquarters branch levels of the Aircraft Certification Service, Flight Standards Service, and the Regulatory Support Division; to the Aviation System Standards office; to the branch level in the Aircraft Certification Service directorates and regional Flight Standards Service divisions; to all aircraft certification offices; to all manufacturing inspection district offices (MIDO) and manufacturing inspection satellite offices (MISO); to all flight standards district offices (FSDO); to the Aircraft Certification Branch and Flight Standards Branch at the FAA Academy; to the International Policy Branch (Brussels, Belgium), flight standards staff; and to all international field offices. 2. Background. In 2005, the Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety determined that unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) could be given limited access to the National Airspace System (NAS) (see Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations part 21, (Certification Procedures for Products and Parts), (a), (c), and (f) (Experimental certificates)). The Director of the Aircraft Certification Service, with concurrence from the Director of the Flight Standards Service, stipulated that this process be managed by the office of primary responsibility for , (Experimental certificates: Aircraft to be used for market surveys, sales demonstrations, and customer crew training). The Aircraft Certification Service, Production and Airworthiness Division, AIR-200, leads the UAS experimental certification process and is tasked with coordinating all aspects of issuing an experimental certificate to a UAS or OPA applicant. If there are any questions regarding this order, please contact a member of the Evaluations and Special Projects Branch, AIR-240, at More information on unmanned aircraft can be found on the FAA website at 3. Authority to Change This Order. The issuance, revision, or cancellation of the material in this order is the responsibility of AIR-200. AIR-200 will institute all changes to carry out the agency s responsibility to provide for original and recurrent airworthiness certifications and related approvals. 4. Forms. Examples of forms referenced in this order are found in FAA Order , Airworthiness Certification of Aircraft and Related Products. 5. Deviations. Adherence to the procedures in this order is necessary for uniform administration of this directive material. Any deviations from this guidance material must be coordinated and approved by AIR-200. If a deviation becomes necessary, the FAA employee involved should ensure the deviations are substantiated, documented, and concurred with by the appropriate supervisor. The deviation must be submitted to AIR-200 for review and approval. Title 28, United States Code 2679, defines the limits of federal protection for FAA employees. NCRSASL - 218

229 11/28/ B Appendix E 6. Suggestions for Improvement. Please forward all comments on deficiencies, clarifications, or improvements regarding this order to: Aircraft Certification Service Administrative Services Branch, AIR-510 ATTN: Directives Management Officer 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC FAA Form , Directive Feedback Information, is located as appendix G to this order for your convenience. If you require an immediate interpretation, please contact AIR-200 at (202) ; however, you should also complete Form as a follow-up to the conversation. 7. Records Management. See FAA Orders (FAA Standard Subject Classification System) and (Records Organization, Transfer, and Destruction Standards), or your Records Management Officer/Directives Management Officer for guidance regarding retention or disposition. E-2 NCRSASL - 219

230 Appendix F. Definitions a. Airworthy. An unmanned aircraft system (UAS) is airworthy if the aircraft and all of the other associated support equipment of the UAS are in condition for safe operation. Special emphasis must be placed on the integrity of the data link. If any element of the systems is not in condition for safe operation, then the UA would not be considered airworthy. b. Direct Control. The capability of a remote pilot to manipulate the flight control surfaces of the aircraft in a direct fashion using, for example, a radio control box with joystick or a ground control station using conventional type aircraft controls (such as a yoke/stick, rudder pedals, power levers, and other ancillary controls). This infers a one-to-one correspondence between control input and flight control surface deflection. c. Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA). The authority needed to operate a UAS in the National Airspace System (NAS) as a public aircraft. COAs are issued by the FAA Air Traffic Organization. d. Exemption. Relief from the requirements of a current regulation as provided for in 14 CFR part 11, General Rulemaking Procedures. e. Indirect Control. The capability of a remote pilot to affect the trajectory of the aircraft through computer input to an onboard flight control system. An example of an indirect control would be the entry of a navigational fix or waypoint on a remote system that, in turn, uploads this information to an onboard flight control computer. The flight control computer then computes the flight control inputs to achieve a flight path to the uploaded waypoint. The onboard system controls the flight control surfaces. f. Optionally Piloted Aircraft (OPA). An aircraft that is integrated with UAS technology and still retains the capability of being flown by an onboard pilot using conventional control methods. g. Safety Evaluation. A comprehensive review of an applicant s UAS or OPA and all associated elements defined in paragraph f and j of this appendix. The applicant is expected to provide any and all information necessary to allow the FAA to objectively determine if the UAS or OPA can be safely operated in the NAS. The form of this review is a presentation by the applicant to the FAA. The safety evaluation is a formal review of the information contained in the safety checklist and is performed at the discretion of the FAA. h. Support Equipment. All associated equipment, whether ground based or airborne, used to enable safe operation of the unmanned aircraft. This includes all elements of the control station, data links, telemetry, navigation, communications equipment, as well as equipment that may be used to launch and recover the aircraft. i. Unmanned Aircraft (UA). A device used or intended to be used for flight in the air that has no onboard pilot. This includes all classes of airplanes, helicopters, airships, and translational lift aircraft that have no onboard pilot. Unmanned aircraft include only those aircraft controllable in three dimensions and, therefore, exclude traditional balloons and unpowered gliders. NCRSASL - 220

231 11/28/ B Appendix F j. Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS). An unmanned aircraft and its associated elements related to safe operation, which may include control stations, data links, support equipment, payloads, flight termination systems, and launch/recovery equipment. F-2 NCRSASL - 221

232 Appendix G. FAA Form , Directive Feedback Information Directive Feedback Information Please submit any written comments or recommendations for improving this directive, or suggest new items or subjects to be added to it. Also, if you find an error, please tell us about it. Subject: FAA Order B To: Administrative Services Branch, AIR-510 (Please check all appropriate line items) An error (procedural or typographical) has been noted in paragraph on page. Recommend paragraph on page be changed as follows: (attach separate sheet if necessary) In a future change to this directive, please include coverage on the following subject (briefly describe what you want added): Other comments: I would like to discuss the above. Please contact me. Submitted by: Date: FTS Telephone Number: Routing Symbol: FAA Form (10-98) NCRSASL - 222

233 Army Regulation Aviation Unmanned Aircraft System Flight Regulations Rapid Action Revision (RAR) Issue Date: 2 July 2010 Headquarters Department of the Army Washington, DC 7 August 2006 UNCLASSIFIED NCRSASL - 223

234 SUMMARY of CHANGE AR Unmanned Aircraft System Flight Regulations This rapid action revision, dated 2 July o Authorizes warrant officers to perform payload operator duties on a limited basis (para 2-1g(3)). o Lists new authorized duty symbols for logging flying time (paras 2-5a(1) through 2-5a(6)). o Provides information on seat position (para 2-5d). o Redefines mission approval process (para 2-12b). o Establishes currency requirements in accordance with the appropriate aircrew training manual (para 4-15a). o Redefines the duties of the aircraft operator (4-19). o Changes mission commander to mission coordinator (para 4-21). o Adds crew chief duties (para 4-25). o Adds ground observer duties (para 4-27). o Adds Aviation Resource Management Survey (para 4-29). o Adds Army Command, Army Service Component Command, Direct Reporting Unit, and National Guard Bureau Army Aviation Standardization Committees (para 4-30). o Adds U.S. Army Aviation Senior Leaders Conference (para 4-31). o Adds U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence and Fort Rucker (para 4-32). o Adds flight data recorder policy and/or procedures (para 5-1f). o Adds instrument flight rule requirements (5-2g). o Changes weight and balance information (chap 7). o Adds Nonstandard Unmanned Aircraft Systems (chap 8). o Changes the use of DA Form 7525 to DA Form 5484 (app B). o Changes the name of appendix C from Manned Unmanned Teaming to Levels of Interoperability (app C). o Establishes regulatory guidance for Small Unmanned Aircraft System operations (app D). NCRSASL - 224

235 o Makes additional rapid action revision changes (chaps 1, 3, and 6). o Makes administrative changes (throughout). NCRSASL - 225

236 Headquarters Department of the Army Washington, DC 7 August 2006 *Army Regulation Effective 7 September 2006 Aviation Unmanned Aircraft System Flight Regulations History. This publication is a rapid action revision (RAR). This RAR is effective 2 August The portions affected by this RAR are listed in the summary of change. S u m m a r y. T h i s r e g u l a t i o n c o v e r s U n - manned Aircraft System operations, unmanned aircraft crewmember training and currency requirements, and flight rules. It a l s o c o v e r s A r m y U n m a n n e d A i r c r a f t System general provisions, training, standardization, and management of Unmanned Aircraft System resources. Applicability. This regulation applies to t h e A c t i v e A r m y, t h e A r m y N a t i o n a l Guard/Army National Guard of the United States, and the U.S. Army Reserve, unless otherwise stated. It also applies to Department of Defense/Department of the Army civilians and civilian contractors involved in the operation, training, standardization, and maintenance of such Unmanned Aircraft Systems. The provisions contained herein govern personnel qualification and c u r r e n c y t r a i n i n g f o r t h o s e U n m a n n e d Aircraft Systems that specifically require a military occupational specialty. The Unmanned Aircraft Systems designed for use by other than military occupational spec i a l t y - q u a l i f i e d u n m a n n e d a i r c r a f t c r e w - members are governed by provisions of appendix D of this regulation. Small and Micro Unmanned Aircraft Systems training, qualification, and currency will be according to the appropriate aircrew training manual. During mobilization, chapters and policies contained in this regulation may be modified by the proponent. Proponent and exception authority. The proponent of this regulation is the Deputy Chief of Staff, G 3/5/7. The proponent has the authority to approve exceptions or waivers to this regulation that are consistent with controlling law and regulations. The proponent may delegate this approval authority, in writing, to a d i v i s i o n c h i e f w i t h i n t h e p r o p o n e n t agency or its direct reporting unit or field operating agency, in the grade of colonel or the civilian equivalent. Activities may request a waiver to this regulation by prov i d i n g j u s t i f i c a t i o n t h a t i n c l u d e s a f u l l analysis of the expected benefits and must include formal review by the activity s senior legal officer. All waiver requests will be endorsed by the commander or s e n i o r l e a d e r o f t h e r e q u e s t i n g a c t i v i t y and forwarded through their higher headquarters to the policy proponent. Refer to AR for specific guidance. Army management control process. This regulation contains management control provisions and identifies key management controls that must be evaluated (see appendix E). S u p p l e m e n t a t i o n. S u p p l e m e n t a t i o n o f this regulation and establishment of command and local forms are prohibited without prior approval from the Deputy Chief o f S t a f f, G 3 / 5 / 7 ( D A M O A V ), A r m y P e n t a g o n, W a s h i n g t o n D C Suggested improvements. Users are invited to send comments and suggested improvements on DA Form 2028 (Recomm e n d e d C h a n g e s t o P u b l i c a t i o n s a n d B l a n k F o r m s ) d i r e c t l y t o C o m m a n d e r, U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence and Fort Rucker (ATZQ ESL), Fort Rucker, AL Distribution. This publication is available in electronic media only and is intended for command levels A, B, C, D, and E for the Active Army, the Army National Guard/Army National Guard of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s, a n d t h e U. S. A r m y Reserve. Contents (Listed by paragraph and page number) Chapter 1 General, page 1 Purpose 1 1, page 1 References 1 2, page 1 Explanation of abbreviations and terms 1 3, page 1 Responsibilities 1 4, page 1 Management control evaluation checklist 1 5, page 2 *This regulation supersedes AR 95 23, dated 14 May This edition publishes a rapid action revision of AR AR August 2006/RAR 2 July 2010 UNCLASSIFIED NCRSASL i

237 Contents Continued Deviations 1 6, page 2 Waivers and delegation of authority 1 7, page 2 Chapter 2 Unmanned Aircraft System Management, page 2 Personnel authorized to fly and/or operate Army Unmanned Aircraft Systems 2 1, page 2 Personnel authorized to operate engines of Army Unmanned Aircraft Systems 2 2, page 3 Crewmembers prohibited from performing unmanned aircraft crewmember duties 2 3, page 4 Unmanned Aircraft System operator and maintenance checklists 2 4, page 4 Logging flying time 2 5, page 4 Computation of flying time 2 6, page 5 Individual flight records 2 7, page 5 Local flying rules 2 8, page 5 Special use airspace 2 9, page 6 Unmanned Aircraft Systems lighting requirements 2 10, page 6 Flight violations 2 11, page 6 Mission approval process 2 12, page 7 Noise abatement 2 13, page 8 Chapter 3 Operations and Safety, page 9 Section I Use of Army Unmanned Aircraft System, page 9 General 3 1, page 9 Operational use missions 3 2, page 9 Special use missions 3 3, page 9 Prohibited missions 3 4, page 9 Section II Safety, page 9 Safety functions 3 5, page 9 Mishap reports, investigations, and release of information 3 6, page 9 Composite risk management 3 7, page 10 Crew endurance management 3 8, page 10 DA Form , page 10 Temporary flying restrictions due to exogenous factors 3 10, page 10 Maintenance flights 3 11, page 10 Maintenance and operations check 3 12, page 10 Section III Army Unmanned Aircraft System Performance Records, page 10 Requests for performance records 3 13, page 10 Purpose of performance records 3 14, page 11 Chapter 4 Training, page 11 Section I Training Program and Literature, page 11 General 4 1, page 11 Waivers to training requirements 4 2, page 11 Publications 4 3, page 11 Aircrew information reading files 4 4, page 11 Aircrew Training Program 4 5, page 11 Unmanned aircraft crewmember qualification and refresher training 4 6, page 12 ii AR August 2006 NCRSASL - 227

238 Contents Continued Annual proficiency and readiness test 4 7, page 12 Emergency procedures training 4 8, page 12 Hands-on performance test 4 9, page 12 Failure to meet Aircrew Training Program requirements 4 10, page 13 Unmanned Aircraft System simulator training requirements 4 11, page 13 Aeromedical training 4 12, page 14 Deck landing operations training 4 13, page 14 Aircraft survivability equipment and/or electronic warfare training 4 14, page 14 Currency 4 15, page 14 Similar Unmanned Aircraft Systems 4 16, page 14 Section II Unmanned Aircraft System Flight Crewmembers, page 14 Unmanned aircraft crewmembers 4 17, page 14 Aircraft commander 4 18, page 15 Aircraft operator 4 19, page 15 External operator 4 20, page 15 Mission coordinator 4 21, page 15 Instructor operator 4 22, page 16 Standardization instructor operator 4 23, page 16 Unit trainer 4 24, page 16 Crew chief 4 25, page 16 Unmanned Aircraft System ground crewmember 4 26, page 16 Unmanned Aircraft System ground observer 4 27, page 17 Section III Standardization, page 17 Unmanned Aircraft System Standardization Program 4 28, page 17 Aviation Resource Management Survey 4 29, page 18 Army Command, Army Service Component Command, Direct Reporting Unit, and National Guard Bureau Army Aviation Standardization Committees 4 30, page 18 U.S. Army Aviation Senior Leaders Conference 4 31, page 19 U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence and Fort Rucker 4 32, page 19 Chapter 5 Flight Procedures and Rules, page 19 General 5 1, page 19 Preflight 5 2, page 20 Departure procedures 5 3, page 21 En route procedures 5 4, page 21 Arrival procedures 5 5, page 22 Emergency recovery procedures 5 6, page 22 Use of airports, heliports, and other landing areas 5 7, page 22 Chapter 6 Safety of Flight Messages and Aviation Safety Action Messages, page 22 General 6 1, page 22 Exception to provisions of safety message 6 2, page 23 Chapter 7 Weight and Balance, page 23 Overview 7 1, page 23 Aircraft weight and balance classifications 7 2, page 23 Unmanned aircraft weight and balance classifications 7 3, page 24 Unmanned aircraft weight and balance file 7 4, page 24 AR August 2006 NCRSASL iii

239 Contents Continued Removal, addition, or relocation of unmanned aircraft equipment 7 5, page 24 Reviewing the weight and balance file 7 6, page 24 Unmanned aircraft weighing 7 7, page 25 Chapter 8 Nonstandard Unmanned Aircraft Systems, page 25 Section I Acquisition and Use, page 25 General 8 1, page 25 Policy 8 2, page 25 Logistical support 8 3, page 26 Section II Training and Standardization, page 27 Waiver authority 8 4, page 27 Technical publications 8 5, page 27 Training and standardization publications 8 6, page 27 Qualification training 8 7, page 27 Flight evaluations 8 8, page 27 Qualification requirements for instructor operators 8 9, page 27 Appendixes A. References, page 28 B. Instructions for Completing DA Form 5484, page 32 C. Levels of Interoperability, page 33 D. Small Unmanned Aircraft System Utilization, page 34 E. Management Control Evaluation Checklist, page 36 Table List Table 4 1: UAS synthetic fight training system, page 14 Glossary iv AR August 2006 NCRSASL - 229

240 Chapter 1 General 1 1. Purpose This regulation establishes procedures, rules, and responsibilities for a. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs), and unmanned aircraft crewmember (UAC) training and standardization. b. The UAS Aircrew Training Program (ATP). c. The UAS-related flight violations. d. Command, control, operations, and use of Department of the Army (DA) UAS. e. The DA UAS Standardization Program. f. The UAS safety of flight (SOF) messages. g. The UAS weight and balance. h. Nonstandard aircraft References Required and related publications and prescribed and referenced forms are listed in appendix A Explanation of abbreviations and terms Abbreviations and special terms used in this regulation are explained in the glossary Responsibilities a. The Secretary of the Army or authorized representative (unless otherwise stated in this regulation) has authority for final decisions in Army UAS operations, as established by the National Security Act of 1947; Title 10, United States Code, Section 3062, (10 USC 3062), as amended. b. The Army Command (ACOM), Army Service Component Command (ASCC), or Direct Reporting Unit (DRU) commander, or the Chief, National Guard Bureau (NGB) will approve requests to engage in public demonstrations and/ or static displays. c. The Chief of Staff, Army will approve Armywide grounding of an entire mission, type, design, and series (MTDS) fleet of UAS. This authority also applies to SOF messages discussed in chapter 6. d. The Deputy Chief of Staff, G 3/5/7 (DCS, G 3/5/7) has staff responsibility for the Army UAS, including waiver authority. e. The Deputy Chief of Staff, G 4 (DCS, G 4) will approve (1) The SOFs and aviation safety action (ASA) messages as discussed in chapter 6. (2) The UAS weight and balance as discussed in chapter 7. f. The Commander, U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence and Fort Rucker (USAACE&FR) as the preparing agency for this regulation will be responsible for (1) The UAS training and standardization literature for all intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance related UAS. (2) The U.S. Army UAS standardization and evaluation programs. (3) Monitoring all UAS training evaluation and standardization. (4) Performing UAS readiness management inspections, as appropriate. g. The Commander, U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM) will (1) Report UAS SOF/ASA conditions and issue SOF/ASAs covered in chapter 6. The UAS SOF/ASA reporting responsibility for those UASs still under procurement action (when system is under contract for procurement but not yet formally fielded to U.S. Army organizations) and/or still under conditional fielding/release to U.S. Army organizations and under the management and/or responsibility of the program executive office for aviation, as exercised through its project manager (PM) for the UAS, will be exercised by program executive office aviation and/or its PM UAS or a designated representative. (2) Be the technical proponent for weight and balance (chap 7). h. The Surgeon General will coordinate health hazard assessment and other medical aspects relating to UAS operations, including appropriate references to medical standards pertinent to UAS personnel documented in AR i. The Chief, National Guard Bureau will (1) Develop policy, concepts, requirements, and organization for Army National Guard (ARNG) UAS elements to support, and effectively risk manage, their dual (state and/or territory and Federal) missions. (2) Serve as the major Army commander for managing the ARNG UAS program consistent with DA UAS regulations and authorized exceptions. (3) Ensure compliance with Federal, DOD, and DA regulatory requirements for the standardization, maintenance, training, operations, and effective risk management of ARNG UAS assets. AR August 2006/RAR 2 July 2010 NCRSASL

241 (4) Ensure that the adjutant generals of states and/or territories, on behalf of the Chief, National Guard Bureau, effectively command, control, and manage the UAS safety and standardization programs in the state and/or territory. j. The Commanding General (CG), U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), in coordination with appropriate HQDA agencies, will develop and recommend the doctrine, concepts, material requirements, and organization of Army UAS elements. The CG, TRADOC will (1) Develop training, standardization, and evaluation literature for UAS training programs (chap 4). (2) Oversee the overall training of weight and balance (chap 7). k. The CG, USAACE&FR, Directorate of Evaluation and Standardization, will monitor UAS training evaluation and standardization, when and if appropriate. l. The commanders of ACOMs, ASCCs, or DRUs will (1) Ensure proper maintenance of UAC individual flight records (para 2 7). (2) Monitor the Army UAS Standardization Program (para 4 28). (3) Oversee SOF messages (chap 6) Management control evaluation checklist a. The regulation that prescribes policy, standards, responsibilities, and accountability for establishing and maintaining effective internal management controls is AR It also provides guidelines for the execution of the Army internal management control program. b. Appendix E is the applicable management control evaluation checklist. Managers will use the checklist as daily guidance and will formally complete the checklist as scheduled by the HQDA functional proponents in the annually updated management control plan. The checklist will be used following the guidance specified in AR Specifically, the checklist will (1) Test whether prescribed controls are present, operational, and effective. Analytical techniques, such as statistical sampling, should be used when appropriate to conserve resources. (2) Identify areas where additions or reductions to existing controls are needed. (3) Select corrective actions when deficiencies have been found that can be corrected locally. (4) Refer deficiencies that cannot be corrected locally to higher command levels for assistance in correcting those deficiencies. ( 5 ) P r o v i d e s u p p o r t f o r t h e c o m m a n d e r s a n n u a l s t a t e m e n t o n t h e a d e q u a c y o f i n t e r n a l c o n t r o l s w i t h i n t h e organization Deviations a. Individuals may deviate from provisions of this regulation during emergencies to the extent necessary to meet the emergency. b. Individuals who deviate from the provisions of this regulation, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations, or host-country regulations must report details of the incident directly to their unit commander. The incident must be reported within 24 hours after it occurs. c. Alleged violations of Federal Aviation Regulation 91 (Title 14, Code of Federal Regulation 91 (14 CFR 91)), host-country regulations, and/or U.S. military aviation regulations will be treated in accordance with paragraph Waivers and delegation of authority a. Authority to grant waivers is stated in specific paragraphs of this regulation. Authority granted to ACOMs, ASCCs, DRUs, or NGBs per this regulation may be further delegated by the ACOM, ASCC, or DRU commander, or the Chief, NGB except when expressly prohibited. All other commanders may not further delegate waiver authority unless authorized in the specific paragraph. b. When waiver authority is not specified in specific paragraphs, waivers to provisions in chapters 2 through 5 may only be granted by Deputy Chief of Staff, G 3/5/7 (DAMO AV), 400 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC and chapters 6 and 7 by Deputy Chief of Staff, G 4, (DALO AV), 500 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC c. Waivers required to be processed through the FAA or a host nation should be coordinated and/or processed through the Commander, U.S. Army Aeronautical Services Agency (USAASA), 9325 Gunston Road, Building 1466, Suite N319, Fort Belvoir, VA, as appropriate. Chapter 2 Unmanned Aircraft System Management 2 1. Personnel authorized to fly and/or operate Army Unmanned Aircraft Systems The following personnel may fly and/or operate Army UASs: a. The UACs who 2 AR August 2006 NCRSASL - 231

242 (1) Are members of the Active Army, Reserve Component, or Army National Guard or are civilian employees of the U.S. Army. (2) Have complied with qualification, training, evaluation, and currency requirements of this regulation (chap 4) for the UAS to be flown and/or operated. b. Civilian employees of Government agencies and Government contractors who have (1) Appropriate military or civilian certifications or ratings in the system(s). (2) Written authorization from the owning ACOM, ASCC, DRU, or the NGB or Commander, USAACE&FR. (3) Necessary compliance with qualification, training, evaluation, and currency requirements of this regulation (chap 4), the provisions of AR 95 20, and the contract and/or statement of work for the UAS to be flown. (4) At a minimum, a medical flight physical as stated in paragraph 2 1g(1), below, or an FAA equivalent. c. The UAS crewmembers in other U.S. Services who have (1) Complied with qualification, training, evaluation, and currency requirements of their Service or of this regulation (chap 4) for the UAS to be flown. (2) Written authorization from their Service and the owning ACOM, ASCC, or DRU commander, or the Chief, NGB. (3) At a minimum, a medical flight physical as stated in paragraph 2 1g(1), below. d. The UACs of foreign military services who have (1) Completed the course of instruction prescribed by an FAA equivalent or their country s aviation organization or service equivalent and have been awarded an appropriate UACs designation. (2) Complied with qualification, training, evaluation, and currency requirements of their service or of this regulation (chap 4) for the UAS to be flown. (3) Properly completed a foreign service disclaimer. (4) Written authorization, including a disclaimer from their government absolving the U.S. Government from liability (unless a disclaimer is included under the provisions of an approved exchange program). The appropriate host ACOM, ASCC, DRU, or the NGB must provide written authorization that will include, as a minimum, the purpose and duration of the authorization. e. Personnel listed in paragraphs 2 1a(1) and (2), above, who are not qualified or current to operate the UAS to be flown, after receiving training directly supervised by an instructor operator (IO) or standardization instructor operator (SO) who is qualified and current in the UAS to be flown. f. Individuals receiving UAS crewmember instruction authorized by HQDA or USAACE&FR Directorate of Evaluation and Standardization (DES) designated agencies. These personnel may fly and/or operate Army UAS after training under an approved program of instruction (POI) or ATP. g. I n d i v i d u a l s r e c e i v i n g U A S c r e w m e m b e r i n s t r u c t i o n a u t h o r i z e d b y t h e D e p u t y C h i e f o f S t a f f, G 3 / 5 / 7, (DAMO AV), 400 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC These people may operate the Army UAS when training under an approved POI or ATP with instructors designated by the DES. (1) All personnel who hold the military occupational specialty (MOS) of an UAS operator must meet the annual medical requirements documented in AR regardless of assignment. Personnel stated above will undergo and successfully satisfy the requirements of at least a Class III Flight Duty Medical Examination as stated in AR Failure to meet medical standards is grounds for disqualification for flying duties. This will result in reclassification action in accordance with AR (2) Personnel who have completed requirements of appendix C of this regulation. (3) Warrant officers who hold a U.S. Army occupational specialty of 150U (Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Operations Technician) and/or officers holding a U.S. Army aeronautical rating that have not completed the HQDAapproved UAS qualification course may perform payload operator duties on a limited basis. Officers performing such duties will (a) Fly with an IO, qualified and current on that UAS, present and in a position to gain immediate access to the required controls and/or console. (b) Pass an emergency procedure and limitations evaluation administered by an IO. Note. Mission and risk approval procedures for these flights, as well as training and evaluation procedures, will be outlined in the unit standing operating procedures (SOPs). Note. Minimum risk approval authority for these missions will be the first O 5 in the chain of command Personnel authorized to operate engines of Army Unmanned Aircraft Systems Those authorized to operate engines of Army UASs include a. Personnel authorized to fly and/or operate Army UASs listed in paragraphs 2 1a(1) and (2), above. b. Other personnel who meet the requirements of paragraph 3 12, below. AR August 2006/RAR 2 July 2010 NCRSASL

243 c. Contractor personnel operating per AR who are authorized to start and runup Army UASs under the provisions of the contract and procedures in accordance with the appropriate UAS operator s manual Crewmembers prohibited from performing unmanned aircraft crewmember duties The following crewmembers are prohibited from performing UAC duties: a. The UACs in nonoperational UAC positions. b. All UACs attending nonflying courses of instruction of more than 90 days duration. For reinstatement of qualification or currency requirements, refer to guidance in chapter 4, section I. c. Those disqualified or temporarily suspended (including medical suspensions) or whose UAC status has been administratively terminated. d. Crewmembers in an authorized leave status. Crewmembers in transition leave status may perform aircrew duties, without a waiver, if aircrew duties are required for employment with the Reserve Components, contractors, or other agencies working for the U.S. Government Unmanned Aircraft System operator and maintenance checklists a. The publications and forms required by DA Pam for all UAS-associated vehicles and ground support equipment and DA Pam for UAS and UAS support equipment will be physically present for review by each UAC directly involved in the actual flight of the UAS prior to operation of any UAS. b. The UAC operator checklists will be used for all operations from preflight through postflight before leaving the UAS. While airborne, the use of the checklist will be accomplished to the extent that the mission requirements and safety will allow. During emergency situations, required checks may be accomplished from memory. c. Checklists will be used when making maintenance operational checks, maintenance test flights, and daily inspections. d. Only DA-approved and current UAC manuals and checklists will be used Logging flying time An entry will be made on DA Form (Army Aviator s Flight Record) for each flight or simulated flight by all UACs indicating duties performed, mission, and flight condition. When recording flight time, use the following symbols: a. Duty. Use the following symbols to record flight time in the UAS and flight simulators when qualified according to chapter 4, section II and for flights in the UAS when designated on the mission brief sheet to perform the duties specified by the symbol. A crewmember may not perform crew duties at multiple stations simultaneously. Crewmembers of UASs instructing or evaluating from a noncrewmember station will use the symbol for the duty being performed. The IO/SO/UT/AC will be used to designate the commander of the aircraft. The AC s position will only be logged by one crewmember at a time. Use the following symbols to record flight time when performing duties specified by the symbol: (1) AC: aircraft commander. (2) AO: aircraft operator. (3) EO: external operator. (4) IO: instructor operator. (5) SO: standardization instructor operator. (6) UT: unit trainer. b. Mission. Use the following symbols to record flight time when performing duties specified by the symbol: (1) A: acceptance test flight. (2) C: combat mission directly against the enemy within a designated combat zone. (3) F: maintenance test flight. (4) S: service missions, other than A, C, F, D, R, T, or X. (5) R: relay mission. (6) D: imminent danger. (7) T: training flight for individual qualification, refresher, mission, or continuation. (8) X: experimental test flight. c. Flight conditions. Each crewmember will use only one of the following symbols to identify the condition or mode of flight for any time period: (1) D: day (between the hours of official sunrise and sunset). (2) N: night (between the hours of official sunset and sunrise). (3) S: simulator flight (flights conducted in an approved UAS synthetic flight training simulator and/or institutional mission simulator and/or other Army-approved UAS simulator). (4) W: weather. Flight of the air vehicle under instrument meteorological conditions that do not permit visual contact with the horizon or earth surface. 4 AR August 2006/RAR 2 July 2010 NCRSASL - 233

244 d. Seat position. Seat position will further define duties being performed by the crewmember. (1) A: will indicate the crewmember who controls and/or monitors the actual flight of the UA from within a ground control station (GCS), launch and recovery site, portable GCS, or similar device. (2) P: will indicate the crewmember who is responsible for operation of the payload to include weapons and sensors. Payload operators employing weapons systems will be qualified and current according to U.S. Army directives. Note. Crewmembers who are performing the duties as SO/IO or UT while not occupying an actual crew position should enter the seat position for which primary instruction is being conducted Computation of flying time With the extended flight time capability of some UASs, flying hour computation for the UAS may differ from that of the UAS crewmembers. Flying time starts when a fixed-wing UAS begins to move forward on the takeoff roll (or takeoff launch for rail launch operations) or when a helicopter UAS lifts off the ground. Flying time ends when the air vehicle has landed and the engines are stopped. However, flying hour computation for the individual crewmembers will be logged only for that portion of the in-flight operations during which the UAC is actually performing crew duty functions on the UAS and/or any of its mission and/or sensor systems Individual flight records a. Each crewmember will hand carry between assignments and must present his or her individual flight records folder (IFRF) and individual aircrew training folder (IATF) to the new unit to which assigned or attached for ATP purposes within 14 calendar days after reporting for duty. b. The flight experience and qualification data for each crewmember will be documented in the DA Form 3513 (Individual Flight Records Folder, United States Army) and IATF according to FM and TC The DA Form 759 (Individual Flight Record and Flight Certificate Army); DA Form (Individual Flight Record and Flight Certificate Army, Aircraft Closeout Summary); DA Form (Individual Flight Record and Flight Certificate Army, Flying Hours Work Sheet); and DA Form (Individual Flight Record and Flight Certificate Army, Flight Pay and Flight Hours Work Sheet) are used to develop data for the permanent record. These forms are filed in the IFRF and become DA s permanent statistical, historical, and personnel flight records. DA Form 7120 R (Commander s Task List), DA Form R (Crew Member Task Performance and Evaluation Requirements), DA Form R (Crew Member Task Performance and Evaluation Requirements Continuation Sheet), DA Form R (Crew Member Task Performance and Evaluation Requirements Remarks and Certification), DA Form 7122 R (Crew Member Training Record), DA Form 4507 (Crew Member Grade Slip), DA Form R (Maneuver/Procedure Grade Slip), DA Form R (Continuation Comment Slip) are used to indicate training and qualification data on crewmembers. c. These records will be prepared and kept on file for (1) Crewmembers in operational positions. (2) Crewmembers in nonoperational positions and those restricted or prohibited by statute from flying Army UASs. These records will be kept in an inactive file either with operational crewmembers files or with military personnel records as specified by ACOM, ASCC, or DRU commander, or the Chief, NGB, or U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). (3) Other personnel authorized to take part in flights. (4) Persons attending qualification training. d. Commanders will maintain, close out, and distribute required individual flight records and individual aircrew training records for persons assigned or attached to their organization in accordance with FM and TC utilizing the Centralized Aviation Flight Records System (CAFRS). e. Upon a UAC s separation and final closeout, the unit flight records custodian will complete a synchronization with the CAFRS Central Database to deactivate the record and move it to the CAFRS Central Database for storage. They will then give the Soldier a copy of the latest DA Form 759 and the remainder of the IFRF along with the IATF Local flying rules a. Installation commanders having Army UASs assigned, attached, or tenant to their commands will prepare and publish local flying rules. Rules will include the use of tactical training and maintenance flight areas, arrival and departure routes, and airspace restrictions as appropriate to control the UAS operations in their local flying areas. b. Installation commanders may set altitudes based on noise abatement, fly-neighborly policies, or other safety considerations. These will be displayed in flight operations and provided to the USAASA for publication in the DOD flight information publication (FLIP). All UACs will become familiar with and adhere to the appropriate published local area traffic pattern altitudes. c. When UASs are authorized to operate in controlled airspace, Army air traffic control (ATC) facilities will use prescribed FAA separation procedures, when provided, for the category and type of flight being conducted. Separate FAA procedures have not been established for UASs nor have UASs been categorized for separation purposes. AR August 2006/RAR 2 July 2010 NCRSASL

245 d. Operations outside of special use airspace (SUA) will be conducted in accordance with AR e. Requests for deviations from FAA Order , chapter 12, to operate UASs outside of restricted areas will be processed through the appropriate DA Regional Representative (DARR) for the specific FAA region Special use airspace a. Army Regulation 95 2 sets Army policy and procedures for handling SUA matters. b. Operations in SUA will be conducted per instructions from the using agency. c. In combat zones, airspace use, control, and management will be conducted per Joint Publication 3 52, in accordance with FM Air traffic control services will be provided per FM d. Unless approval is granted in advance through the appropriate DARR, all UAS flights and/or operations will be conducted in the appropriate SUA, per AR Any UAS flight operations not conducted in SUA must comply with AR 95 2 and FAA Order e. Restricted areas established for the purpose of aircraft and/or unmanned aircraft (UA) operations may also be activated for UAS operations with prior coordination with appropriate agencies Unmanned Aircraft Systems lighting requirements a. Army UASs will be illuminated to at least the minimum standards required by the country in which the flight operations occur. b. Unmanned aircraft anticollision lights will be on when UAS engines are operating, except when there may be other hazards to safety. c. Unmanned aircraft position lights will be ON between official sunset and sunrise. d. The UAS night lighting requirements will be prescribed in unit standing operating procedures and mission orders Flight violations Policies and procedures for reporting and investigating alleged flight rules violations are a. Violations. Any violation of FAA, International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), host country, and/or any other pertinent aviation regulation will be reported. Any person witnessing or involved in a flight violation involving civil or military UA, will report the violation as soon as possible. (1) Violations by military UA will be reported to one of the following: (a) The commander of the unit, activity, or installation (if known) to which the air vehicle belongs. (b) The DARR of the FAA region in which the alleged violation took place (see AR 95 2 for addresses). (c) The Commander, USAASA, Fort Belvoir, VA (d) The U.S. Army Aeronautical Detachment, Europe, if the incident took place in its area of responsibility (see AR 95 2 for addresses). (e) The 8th Army Air Traffic Control, U.S. Forces Korea, (U.S. Army Air Traffic Control & Airspace Coordinator s office), if the incident took place in its area of responsibility (see AR 95 2 for addresses). (f) The U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, in accordance with AR 195 2, if the violation results in significant property damage and/or destruction, serious injury, or death and is believed to have been caused by criminal acts or negligence. (2) Violations by civil aircraft should be reported to one of the following: (a) The Flight Standards District Office for the FAA region in which the alleged violation took place. (b) The FAA Communications Center, Washington, DC (c) The DARR of the FAA region in which the alleged violation took place (see AR 95 2 for addresses). (d) The Commander, USAASA, Fort Belvoir, VA (e) The U.S. Army Aeronautical Detachment, Europe, if the incident took place in its area of responsibility (see AR 95 2 for addresses). (f) The 8th Army Air Traffic Control, U.S. Forces Korea, (U.S. Army Air Traffic Control & Airspace Coordinator s office), if the incident took place in its area of responsibility (see AR 95 2 for addresses). (3) Names of crewmembers of military UA involved in actual or alleged violations will be treated as restricted information and not be released to the public or any agency outside the DOD, except by proper authority. Any person receiving requests for names of crewmembers of Army UA should direct such inquiries to the Commander, USAASA (see para 2 11a(1)(c)). b. Information reported. To report an alleged violation, use a letter or memorandum format. Neither DA Form 2696 (Operational Hazard Report) nor DA Form 4755 (Employee Report of Alleged Unsafe or Unhealthful Working Conditions) is normally used to report flight violations. When reporting an alleged violation, as much information as possible should be given, to include (1) Type and make of aircraft and/or UA. (2) Tail number. (3) Name of the mission coordinator (MC). 6 AR August 2006 NCRSASL - 235

246 (4) Unit assigned, if military. (5) Location where aircraft and/or UAS is based. (6) Description of alleged violation, including (a) Specific reference to regulations violated. (b) What happened. (c) Time and date the alleged violation occurred. (d) Where the alleged violation occurred. (7) Name and phone number of the individual reporting the alleged violation. (8) Names, addresses, and phone numbers of additional witnesses, if any. (9) Other pertinent information. c. Investigation. (1) Reports of alleged violations received from the FAA, ICAO, or a host country will be investigated under the provisions of AR (2) Commanders receiving a report of violations from sources other than those listed in paragraph 2 11c (1), above, will first determine if it involves personnel or aircraft and/or UAS under their command and, if necessary, initiate an investigation under AR (3) Based on the outcome of the investigation, commanders will take appropriate administrative, judicial, or nonjudicial action. (4) Results of investigations conducted per AR 15 6 will be reported through channels to the Commander, USAASA, Fort Belvoir, VA The report will include the findings of the investigation, the corrective action taken or proposed, any conclusions derived, the type of disciplinary action taken (if any), and any other pertinent information. This report must reach the USAASA within 60 days of the commander receiving notification of the alleged violation unless the immediate commander cannot complete the investigation or the administrative or disciplinary action within this time. In this case, an interim report will be forwarded detailing the reasons for the delay. (5) Under no circumstances will a report of investigation prepared under the provisions of this regulation be released outside of DOD, except in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or Privacy Act, as implemented by AR and AR All requests for information under the FOIA or Privacy Act will be referred to the installation or unit FOIA and/or operations security coordinator for processing in accordance with AR or AR Mission approval process Commanders in the grade of O 5 (lieutenant colonel) and above will develop and publish policies and procedures for the mission approval process for those UAS units under their command. If the chain of command lacks a commander in the grade of O 5, the ACOM, ASCC, or DRU commander, or the Chief, NGB may adjust this requirement. Adjustment authorities granted throughout this paragraph will not be delegated below the general officer level. Approval authorities and procedures established for tactical and combat operations may differ from those utilized for garrison operations. Unit commanders will establish a training and certification program for mission briefer and mission approval authorities to ensure standardization and understanding of the mission approval and risk management process for personnel defined in paragraph a below. a. Definitions. (1) Initial mission approval authority. Unit commanders or their designated representatives (operations officer and so forth) determine the mission feasibility and either accept or reject the mission for the unit. (2) Briefing officer and/or noncommissioned officer. Briefing officers and/or NCOs will be designated in writing by commanders in the grade of O 5 or above to identify, assess, and mitigate risk. The briefing officers and/or NCOs will be selected based on their level of experience, maturity, judgment, and ability to effectively mitigate risk to the UA and crew. Experience is critical for briefing officers and/or NCOs to identify hazards, assess hazards, and develop control measures for the crew which are key components of the risk management process. (3) Final mission approval authority. Final mission approval authority are members of the chain of command who are responsible for accepting risk and approving all UAS operations within their unit. They approve missions for a specific risk level. Individuals with final mission approval authority may only approve those missions where the assessed risk level is commensurate with their command level. Commanders in the grade of O 5 and above will select final mission approval authorities from the chain of command and designate them in writing along with the level of risk (low, moderate, high, or extremely high) mission they are authorized to approve. At a minimum, battalion commanders and above are the final mission approval authority for moderate-risk missions, brigade commanders and above for high-risk missions, and the first general officer in the chain of command for extremely high-risk missions. Approval authorities are based upon levels of command authority and not rank. For units lacking these positions, the ACOM/ASCC/DRU commander, or the Chief, NGB may adjust them within these guidelines. During bona fide absences, battalion and brigade commanders may authorize their field grade executive officer or S 3 to accept the risk and approve the operation on their behalf provided they are properly trained and notify the commander as soon as possible. AR August 2006/RAR 2 July 2010 NCRSASL

247 (4) Risk assessment worksheets. Unit commanders will develop local risk assessment worksheets (RAWs) to assess aircrew mission planning and risk. The RAW will be constructed using the concepts outlined in FM The commander will combine guidance from higher commanders with personal knowledge of the unit and experience to assign levels of risk to particular parameters. Risk levels are used to elevate items of interest to successive levels of command for visibility and acceptance. (5) DA Form Copies of the DA Form 5484 (Mission Schedule/Brief) will be retained in unit files with the corresponding RAW for at least 30 days. b. Mission approval process. The mission approval process for UAS operations is accomplished in three steps that must be completed prior to mission execution. (1) Step one: Initial mission approval. The initial mission approval authority approves the mission in accordance with the commander s policies and procedures by considering some of the following factors: alignment with the unit s mission essential task list, aircraft required and available, availability of required special mission equipment, trained aircrew availability, other training and mission impacts, tactical and threat considerations, and so on. This step is not a detailed hazard and risk analysis for specific flight operations but rather an assessment of the unit s capability to accomplish the mission. Initial approval may occur at different levels of command depending on how the mission is generated. For example, a mission generated at the brigade level might be accepted by the battalion operations officer while a platoon training mission might be accepted by the company commander. (2) Step two: Mission planning and briefing. This step involves detailed planning, risk assessment, and risk mitigation by the aircrew and review by the briefing officer and/or NCO. Briefing officers are authorized to brief missions regardless of the level of mitigated risk. Self-briefing is not authorized unless approved by the first officer in the grade of O 5 or above in the chain of command. Interaction between crew and briefer is paramount to identify, assess, and mitigate risk for the specific flight or mission. Briefing officers are responsible for ensuring key mission elements are evaluated, briefed, and understood by the MC. Mission briefing officers and/or NCOs will, at a minimum, review and assess the following key areas in the mission planning process: (a) The flight is in support of an operational unit mission and has been approved by step one. (b) The crew understands the mission and possesses situational awareness of all tactical, technical, and administrative mission details. (c) Assigned flight crews have been allocated adequate pre-mission planning time and the mission is adequately planned to include performance planning, Notice to Airmen (NOTAM), and coordination with supported units. (d) Assigned flight crews are qualified and current for the mission in accordance with this regulation, aircrew information reading file currency, and crew experience appropriate for the mission. (e) Forecast weather conditions for the mission including departure, en route, and arrival weather meet the requirements of this regulation and local directives. (f) Flight crews meet unit crew endurance requirements. (g) Procedures in the commander s risk management program are completed and mitigated to the lowest level possible. (h) Required special mission equipment is operational. (3) Step 3: Final mission approval. Based on the resulting mitigated risk, the appropriate final approval authority reviews the mission s validity, planning, and risk mitigation and authorizes the flight and/or operation in accordance with the commander s policy. The final approval authority indicates authorization for flight by initialing the RAW and the briefing officer initials the DA Form 5484 indicating completion of the briefing. Briefing officers and final approval authorities may give oral approval if necessary. If a crewmember changes or a mission parameter changes which increases the resultant risk, the MC will be rebriefed and reapproved as required Noise abatement a. Noise abatement policies will be disseminated by the Commander, USAASA. Installations will develop and publish local noise abatement programs that minimize aircraft noise footprint on and near the installation and within the local flying area and establish good public relations programs to educate and inform the public. b. The UAC will participate in noise abatement and fly-neighborly programs to minimize annoyance to persons on the ground when missions and safety are not adversely affected. c. When operating in noise sensitive areas, unless required by the mission, all Army aircraft will maintain a minimum of 2,000 feet above the surface of the following: national parks, monuments, recreation areas and scenic river ways administered by the National Parks Service, National Wildlife Refuges, Big Game Refuges, or Wildlife Ranges administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and wilderness and primitive areas administered by the U.S. Forest Service. d. Army aviation activities which normally operate in or adjacent to those areas listed in paragraph c, above, may enter into local agreements with the controlling agency to modify procedures required for mission accomplishment. 8 AR August 2006/RAR 2 July 2010 NCRSASL - 237

248 Chapter 3 Operations and Safety Section I Use of Army Unmanned Aircraft System 3 1. General Army UAS will be used for official purposes only. The UAS use must comply with paragraph 3 2 and must not be prohibited by paragraph 3 4 of this regulation. The only authorized classes of missions designated for an Army UAS are operational use and, as approved, special use. To ensure that the noncombatant status of civilians and contractors is not jeopardized, commanders shall consult with their servicing judge advocate office for guidance before using civilian or contractor personnel in combat operations or other missions involving direct participation in hostilities Operational use missions Operational use missions include those missions required to accomplish the Army s mission and to maintain the combat readiness of UAS and supported units. These UAS missions are a. Actual or simulated tactical and/or combat operations. b. Unmanned aircraft crewmember training. c. Intelligence. d. Counternarcotics activities. e. Support to search and rescue. f. Research and development. g. Maintenance flights. h. Flight tests. i. Repositioning or reassignment of aircraft. j. Special use (humanitarian, disaster relief, and deployments). k. Aeronautical research and space and science application. l. Exercise command and/or supervision authority Special use missions Unless specified, approval authorities for missions authorized in this paragraph are ACOM, ASCC, or a DRU commander, or the Chief, NGB. They may delegate approval authority not lower than installation commanders, U.S. Army Reserve Command (ARCOM) commanding generals or state adjutants general. In addition to operational missions, Army UAS may be used for the following purposes: a. Aerial demonstrations in support of civil or military official functions. b. Static demonstrations not on a military installation as performed in support of community relations activities will comply with AR c. Units assigned an aerial demonstration mission within CONUS will comply with Federal Aviation Regulation 91. Aerial demonstrations not on a military installation will not be conducted until coordinated with the appropriate DARR. The DARRs are listed in AR 95 2, table 6 1, and in TB AVN d. Units assigned an aerial demonstration mission OCONUS will comply with published ACOM, ASCC, DRU, or the NGB, host nation, and ICAO regulations. e. The UAS support of community relations and public information, if approved, in accordance with AR Prohibited missions a. Army UAS will not be used to conduct flights for personal use. b. Army UAS operations will not be conducted outside of those areas identified in paragraph 2 9. c. Army UAS will not be operated in a manner outside of the definition of public aircraft (49 USC 40102(a)(37)). Section II Safety 3 5. Safety functions Commanders will implement the mishap prevention program set up by DA Pam Mishap reports, investigations, and release of information a. Procedures for investigating and reporting UAS mishaps are prescribed in DA Pam b. Policy and procedures for reporting casualties and notifying next of kin of personnel involved in accidents are prescribed in AR AR August 2006/RAR 2 July 2010 NCRSASL

249 c. Requests for UAS mishap reports will be answered per DA Pam d. Requests for information under the FOIA will be processed per AR e. For all instances of a UAS Class A accident, the first general officer in the chain of command is required to accept the out brief from the accident investigation team. f. Commanders will implement the aviation accident prevention program according to DA Pam Composite risk management a. Commanders will integrate risk management into UAS mission planning and execution at every level. Chapter 6 of the UAS aircrew training manual (ATM) will be used as a guide for implementation of this program. b. The risk management process begins at mission conception and continues until mission completion. The process is applied with the goal of eliminating hazards where possible and reducing residual risks to acceptable levels. c. When possible, the hazard assessment step of the process should be documented by the mission developer and/or planner. (TC 1 600, chapter 6, explains formalized assessments.) File assessment documentation with the UAS mission briefing in accordance with FM Crew endurance management a. Crew endurance is an integral part of the overall composite risk management program. It is used to control risks due to sleep deprivation or fatigue and to prescribe thresholds to trigger command decisions whether to accept those risks. b. Commanders will design a crew endurance program tailored to their unit mission and include it in their SOP. The DA Pam and the Leaders Guide to Crew Endurance (obtained at crewend.pdf) establish guidance for crew endurance programs. c. Commanders should consider the advice of flight surgeons and safety personnel in designing their crew endurance programs DA Form 2696 DA Form 2696 will be used to notify commanders and safety councils of anything affecting the safety of Army UA or related personnel and equipment. The commander will investigate reported hazards and correct unsafe conditions. (See DA Pam for instructions on completing DA Form 2696) Temporary flying restrictions due to exogenous factors For the implementation of temporary flying restrictions due to exogenous factors affecting UAC efficiency, commanders will refer to AR Maintenance flights a. Maintenance flights will be conducted per technical manual or appropriate UAS technical manual guidelines. b. Maintenance flights for UAS that have been provided to a contractor, as government-furnished equipment, will be flown and/or conducted consistent with the provisions of the contract between the government and the contractor. c. The UAS crewmembers performing maintenance flights must be qualified and current Maintenance and operations check a. Only authorized personnel will perform maintenance and operational checks on UASs per DA Pam 750 8, DA Pam , TM (or current memorandum of agreement for newly acquired systems), and appropriate UAS technical manuals, as applicable. b. System qualified personnel who are authorized to start, runup, and taxi UAS or control stations for the purpose of maintenance operational checks and are not qualified per paragraph 2 1a(1) and (2) will (1) Undergo appropriate normal and emergency procedures training conducted by an instructor operator in the specific MTDS UAS for which the maintenance operational checks are to be performed. (2) Be evaluated semiannually by an instructor operator on all functions they are required to perform. (3) Have written authorization from the commander. This authorization must specify the operations and checks permitted and be posted in their IATF and the maintenance office. Section III Army Unmanned Aircraft System Performance Records Requests for performance records The policy for handling requests from the Services for authority to establish performance records by a military UAS is prescribed in DODI It authorizes periodic official demonstrations of military UAS for the purposes of establishing new performance such as speed and endurance records. 10 AR August 2006/RAR NCRSASL - 239

250 3 14. Purpose of performance records The following policies apply to the use of Army UASs for the purpose of performance records. a. Only service UASs will become eligible to establish new performance records. These UASs will be eligible 6 months after the first UAS is delivered to an operational unit. b. Service requests to engage in public demonstrations to establish performance records and release information on new performance records will be submitted to OASD (PA), for approval or disapproval, after coordination (1) By OASD (PA), within DOD. (2) With other appropriate departments of the Government (for example, FAA, Department of Transportation). (3) With the National Aeronautics Association. c. Requests in paragraph b, above, will be accompanied with a description of the specific UAS, full justification of the purpose of the record attempt, flight plans, and information supporting the attempt. d. Requests by ACOMs, ASCCs, DRUs, or NGBs for authority to establish performance records by a military UAS will be submitted to HQDA (DAMO FDV), Washington, DC , at least 60 days prior to any proposed record establishment attempt. Chapter 4 Training Section I Training Program and Literature 4 1. General The UAS ATP will be in accordance with the appropriate UAS ATM Waivers to training requirements a. Unit waivers to primary ATP requirements may be granted only by the following: (1) Commanders of ACOM, ASCC, DRU and USSOCOM. (2) Commander, U.S. Army Reserve Command. (3) Chief, National Guard Bureau. (4) Commanders colonel (O 6) and above and the state Army aviation officer (SAAO) may grant unit waivers and/ or extensions to ATP requirements for units under their command, or state and/or territory affected by operational deployments. These commanders may grant unit extensions for up to 180 days from their self-established start training date after redeployment. b. Individual waivers to primary UAS ATP requirements may be granted by the first commander, O 6 or above, in the individual s chain of command. c. Waivers will state the specific requirement that is to be waived. d. The ATP requirements are waived for UACs assigned to units, commands, or installations with no UAS assets available. The UAC will maintain a current flying duty medical examination in accordance with AR Publications Operator s manuals and checklists are the primary references governing the operation of a specific UAS. Aircrew training manuals, field manuals, technical manuals, and training circulars will be used as required. When differences exist between this regulation and other publications, this regulation has precedence. The DA Form 2028 recommending changes to these publications will be submitted through the UAS unit commander to the proponent of the manual Aircrew information reading files Units will establish and maintain UAC training and aircrew information reading file according to DA Pam and TC Assigned and/or attached UAC personnel will read and remain familiar with these files. Reading files will include but are not limited to the following publications: appropriate operator s manuals, DA Pam , AR 40 8, AR 95 2, AR 95 23, TC 1 600, local policy letters, and unit and facility SOPs Aircrew Training Program a. The UAS ATP standardizes UAC training and evaluations to ensure combat readiness. b. The ATP outlined in the ATM is mandatory for all UACs assigned to operational flying positions in UAS units as specified in ATMs. The ATP includes requirements for hours, tasks, and iterations identified in appropriate ATMs; UAS simulator; readiness level (RL) progression; and the annual proficiency and readiness test (APART). UACs assigned or attached to another Service will meet the training program requirements of that Service. Department of the AR August 2006/RAR 2 July 2010 NCRSASL

251 Army civilian UACs will be trained and evaluated as specified in writing by the commander as necessary to meet the requirements of their military support job description. c. The unit commander may excuse an UAC scheduled for retirement or separation from active duty from all ATP requirements. The UAC may be excused beginning no sooner than 6 months before the scheduled retirement or separation date. However, UACs who are excused are prohibited from performing further UAC flight duties Unmanned aircraft crewmember qualification and refresher training a. Qualification training. (1) Formal training at other DA-designated training bases may be conducted upon receipt of approval by DCS, G 3/ 5/7, (DAMO AV). The ARNG specific requests will be routed through Chief, National Guard Bureau, (NGB AVN O to DAMO AV). (2) Unless otherwise approved by HQDA (DAMO AV), local transition training will not be conducted when a formal DA qualification course exists. Exceptions may be granted on an as required basis by HQDA (DAMO AV), in which case training will be in accordance with an appropriate ACOM, ASCC, DRU, or NGB approved POI. (3) To ensure standardization throughout the Army UAS community, flight training will be conducted using the training and evaluation requirements prescribed in the appropriate UAS ATM. (4) Training an UAC in an UAS category other than that in which he or she is qualified to fly and/or operate is permitted only in a formal school course. (5) Those UACs who successfully complete qualification training conducted by the Army or other U.S. military Service will be awarded an additional MOS or additional skill identifier (see AR 611 1). (6) A statement of completed UAS and/or UAS system qualification (such as, synthetic aperture radar, or Airborne Standoff Minefield Detection System) will be entered into the UAC IATF and IFRF. The personnel officer will include the statement in the member s military personnel records. (7) Operator and instructor operator qualification training in nonstandard UAS will be conducted according to chapter 8. b. Refresher training. When UACs have not flown within the past 180 days, they will receive refresher training prescribed in the appropriate UAS ATM. When UAS ground crewmembers have not conducted UAS ground crewmember duties within the past 180 days, they will receive refresher training according to the appropriate UAS ATM and technical manuals. The gaining command is responsible for the refresher training (except for crewmembers assigned to overseas commands for duty in an operational UAS flying position) Annual proficiency and readiness test a. The APART will be conducted and documented in accordance with the appropriate ATM. The APART is given to each RL 1 and Department of the Army civilian UAC within the APART period. For Department of the Army civilian or ARNG UAC, individual components of the APART may be accomplished in any calendar quarter designated by the commander and/or SAAO. b. The UACs who fail to meet APART standards will be processed in accordance with paragraph 4 10 of this regulation Emergency procedures training Training in emergency procedures will be conducted per the appropriate ATM. A qualified IO or SO who is current in that MTDS of UAS will be present and in a position to gain immediate access to the required controls and/or console Hands-on performance test Each UAC must successfully complete periodic hands-on performance tests conducted by an IO or SO as applicable, per the appropriate ATM. Hands-on tests are a. Standardization flight evaluation. The flight consists of flight maneuvers and/or procedures conducted in each primary, additional, and alternate UAS (para 4 15) that a UAC is required to operate. The evaluation is conducted to determine the examinee s ability to perform assigned flight duties. The first commander, O 5 or above, in the chain of command may, on a case-by-case basis, direct use of a compatible UAS flight simulator if circumstances preclude safe, affordable, or timely evaluation in the UAS (except for those EO duties requiring actual takeoff and landing performance evaluation). The Standardization Flight Evaluation was designed to determine an operator s proficiency controlling the UAS and, therefore, cannot be determined without a UAS operator physically being on the controls. The IO/ SO must be at the flight controls when performing their individual standardization flight evaluation. The evaluation will (1) Be conducted as described in the appropriate ATM. (2) Be conducted by a designated IO or SO to establish initial qualification in a UAS series and once each year during the APART. (3) The first commander, O5 or above, in the chain of command may, on a case by case basis, direct use of a 12 AR August 2006/RAR 2 July 2010 NCRSASL - 241

252 compatible UAS flight simulator if circumstances preclude safe, affordable, or timely evaluation in the UAS (except for those EO duties requiring actual takeoff and landing performance evaluation). b. Proficiency flight evaluation. The evaluation is administered to any UAC in an operational flying position in any UAS-series group (para 4 15) or UAS he or she is required to operate. The evaluation will be conducted (1) At the discretion of the commander. (2) At the direction of HQDA. (3) By an IO or SO per the appropriate ATM. (4) To determine an individual s proficiency and/or currency. (5) To determine which phase of training is appropriate for entry into or continuing in the ATP. Note. No-notice evaluations may be written examinations, oral examinations, UAS flight evaluations, or compatible UAS simulator evaluations. c. Postmishap flight evaluation. This flight evaluation is administered to a crewmember to determine his or her ability to perform required duties following a UAS mishap. Crewmembers performing crew duties involved in a Class A or B mishap will be suspended from flight duties until successful completion of an evaluation. The evaluation will be conducted in the same MTDS UAS in which the mishap occurred. Crewmembers performing crew duties involved in a Class C mishap may be suspended from flight duties and required to successfully complete a flight evaluation at the discretion of the commander. An IO or SO will conduct the evaluation in accordance with the appropriate ATM (see AR for medical release requirements prior to flight). d. Medical flight evaluation. This flight evaluation measures a crewmember s ability to perform required duties after incurring a medical disability. The evaluation will be administered upon the recommendation of the flight surgeon or appropriate medical authority. The evaluation of flight duties will be conducted by an IO or SO in accordance with the appropriate ATM Failure to meet Aircrew Training Program requirements a. The commander will investigate when ATP requirements are not met. The commander will complete the investigation within 30 days of notification of the failure. After investigating, the UAS unit commander will (1) Take one of the following actions: (a) Authorize up to one 30 day extension granted by commanders 0 5 and above to complete the requirements. (b) Request a waiver of requirements per paragraph 4 2b. (2) Enter restrictions imposed and extensions granted into the UAC s IATF. (3) Enter extensions and waivers for the UAC into that operator s IFRF. (4) Restrict the UAC from performing AC duties in the UAS until ATP requirements have been successfully completed. b. For primary UAS, if additional time is not granted, or if requirements are not met within the authorized period, the commander will suspend the UAC from further UAC duties. Commanders must then either request a waiver according to paragraph 4 2b or initiate proceedings for MOS reclassification. c. The UAC who fails a hands-on performance test will be restricted from performing the duty for which evaluated. The restriction will apply to all UAS with similar operating and handling characteristics as listed in paragraph R e s t r i c t i o n s w i l l b e l i s t e d i n t h e o p e r a t o r s I A T F a n d w i l l r e m a i n i n e f f e c t u n t i l s u c c e s s f u l c o m p l e t i o n o f a reevaluation. (1) When the failure is in the UAC s primary UAS, the commander must (a) Redesignate the individual to the appropriate RL. (b) Authorize additional training if necessary. (c) For AO, payload operator (PO) or EO, reevaluate or impose a temporary suspension from flying duties. (d) For other qualified UACs, reevaluate or remove the individual from UAC duties. (2) When the failure is in an UAC s additional or alternate UAS, the commander must (a) Redesignate the individual to the appropriate RL. (b) Authorize additional training if necessary. (c) Reevaluate, retrain, or restrict the UAC from performing duties in that UAS Unmanned Aircraft System simulator training requirements a. Annual training requirement minimums will be in accordance with the appropriate ATM. b. The UAS simulators are listed in table 4 1. AR August 2006 NCRSASL

253 Table 4 1 UAS synthetic fight training system Designation: Hunter Institutional Mission Simulator (IMS), Hunter Ground Control Station (w/embedded simulator) Compatible unmanned aircraft: RQ 5A/B, MQ 5 Hunter Designation: Extended Range Multi-Purpose (ERMP) Ground Control Station (w/embedded simulator), ERMP Institutional Mission Simulator (IMS) Compatible unmanned aircraft: MQ 1C Designation: Shadow Ground Control Station (w/embedded simulator) Compatible unmanned aircraft: RQ 7A/B Designation: Shadow Institutional Mission Simulator (IMS) / Portable IMS Compatible unmanned aircraft: RQ 7A/B Aeromedical training The UAC will receive aeromedical training per TC and the appropriate ATM Deck landing operations training a. If deck landing operations are contemplated and/or anticipated, UAS flight crewmembers must complete deck landing qualification and be current in accordance with the most current Army and/or Air Force Deck Landing Operations Memorandum of Understanding prior to conducting naval deck landing operations. b. Units may obtain a copy of the most current Army and/or Air Force Deck Landing Operations Memorandum of Understanding by writing to Headquarters, Department of the Army (DAMO AV), Washington, DC Aircraft survivability equipment and/or electronic warfare training The UAS commanders in tactical units with aircraft survivability equipment and/or electronic warfare training capability will establish programs to train crewmembers on the operation and effectiveness of aircraft survivability equipment against electronic threats. The training will be administered and evaluated per the appropriate ATM Currency a. Currency requirements will be according to the appropriate ATM. b. The UAC whose currency has lapsed must complete a proficiency flight evaluation according to the appropriate ATM. Simulators may not be used to reestablish currency. c. Night currency requirements will be according to the appropriate ATM. d. In areas where extreme environmental conditions may preclude safe operation of UAS for periods exceeding 120 consecutive days, authorization for use of compatible simulators for maintaining AO currency up to 180 days may be granted by (1) Commanders of ACOMs, ASCCs, DRUs, and USSOCOM. (2) Commander, U.S. Army Reserve Command. (3) Chief, National Guard Bureau Similar Unmanned Aircraft Systems Currency in one series UAS will satisfy the requirement for all UAS within the series or group; separate currency is required for all other UAS. Series UAS with similar operating and handling characteristics are listed in the appropriate aircrew training manual. Section II Unmanned Aircraft System Flight Crewmembers Unmanned aircraft crewmembers The UAS unit commanders must establish, in writing, formal UAS flight crewmember qualification and selection programs. Programs will contain qualification and selection criteria and evaluation requirements. The UAS instructor operators and safety personnel will aid commanders in the selection process. The UAS crewmembers will be designated, in writing, by their unit commander who will specify the UAS duties and crew stations that the UACs are authorized to occupy in accordance with TC Flight crews will be evaluated during the APART period in each flight control crew station at which they are authorized to perform UAC duties. 14 AR August 2006/RAR 2 July 2010 NCRSASL - 243

254 4 18. Aircraft commander The AC acts as the commander of the aircraft. Commanders in the grade of O 5 and above will select the AC based on their experience, maturity, judgment, and ability to effectively mitigate risk to the UAS and designate them by name and in writing. Commanders will establish an AC training and certification program to ensure standardization and understanding for personnel defined in paragraphs 4 17 and 4 18 of this regulation. The AC will be a. Responsible and have final authority for operating, servicing, and securing the UAS they command. b. Selected for each flight or series of flights. c. Qualified, current, and RL 1 in the MTD UAS to be flown. d. Listed in the flight plan or unit operation log. e. At a crew station with access to the flight controls. f. The UT, IO, or SO when evaluating or instructing with access to the flight controls will be the commander of the aircraft. (Access to the controls for the AO can also be achieved from sitting in the back of the shelter; however, for the EO station, the IO must physically be at the EO primary control box.) g. Approved according to the mission approval process before each mission. (The UT, IO, or SO when performing duties from other than the A or P seat will participate in the mission approval process.) Aircraft operator a. The AO, when designated, will be (1) At a crew station with access to the controls. (2) Qualified and current in the aircraft MTDS. (3) Briefed by the AC. (4) Listed on the flight plan or unit operation log. b. Flight trainees undergoing training and personnel performing limited cockpit duties according to paragraph 2 4 of this regulation may perform AO duties when an IO is at one set of controls. The IO must be qualified and current in the MTDS aircraft being flown. c. When the operator s manual or mission requires two operators as minimum crew, two operators qualified and current in the MTDS aircraft to be flown are required. When an IO qualified in the MTDS aircraft being flown is at one set of controls, the following additional personnel meet this requirement: (1) Persons undergoing authorized training. (2) Personnel performing limited duties according to paragraph 2 1 of this regulation. (3) Personnel approved by an ACOM, ASCC, or DRU commander, or the Chief, NGB or the Commander, USAACE&FR for flights at USAACE&FR, in writing, when the following conditions have been met: (a) Flight is for demonstrating or determining the capabilities and/or combat effectiveness of the aircraft. (b) Flight will be in visual meteorological condition (VMC). (c) Specific simulated emergency procedures to be conducted will be briefed and approved. (d) Flight has been approved by the commander of the ACOM, ASCC, DRU or Chief, NGB providing the aircraft or the Commander, USAACE&FR for flights at USAACE&FR. If any of the above conditions cannot be complied with, a waiver may be requested according to paragraph 1 7 of this regulation External operator The EO is the UAS crewmember responsible for the actual takeoff and landing of UA not incorporating an automatic takeoff and landing system Mission coordinator Commanders in the grade of O 5 and above will select the MC based on recent aviation experience, maturity, judgment, their abilities for mission situational awareness, the understanding of the commander s intent and not necessarily upon rank or grade. Commanders will establish the MC training and certification program to ensure standardization and understanding for airspace, weather, risk mitigation, mission approval process, and the system being employed. The designation of MC is an assignment of responsibility and is not a crew duty assignment. The MC will a. Hold a U.S. Army occupational specialty of 150U, a U.S. military aeronautical designation, or personnel authorized to operate Army UAS according to paragraph 2 1 of this regulation. b. Be selected for each flight or series of flights. c. Participate in the mission approval process along with each AC of each aircraft and may receive the final mission approval for all crews. d. Be listed in the unit operation log. e. Be responsible for crew briefings including mission changes and updates. f. Be briefed by a commander-designated briefing officer and/or NCO before each mission and perform a back brief. AR August 2006/RAR 2 July 2010 NCRSASL

255 g. Pass a semiannual written exam according to TC 1 600, paragraph 3 15, on the UAS in which the MC duties will be performed. h. Participate in the unit no-notice program Instructor operator a. The IO will train and evaluate UACs in accordance with the appropriate ATM. b. The IOs must be designated, in writing, by the unit commander and be qualified and current in the UAS to be operated. c. To become qualified as an IO, the UAC must successfully complete one of the following: (1) A DA-approved IO course in the aircraft category in which IO duties are to be performed. (2) An IO equivalency evaluation administered by a standardization operator (SO) selected by USAACE&FR DES in the aircraft category in which IO duties are to be performed. Commanders will coordinate with DES (ATZQ ES) Fort Rucker prior to submitting request for equivalency evaluation to DAMO AV. (3) In the absence of a Department of the Army IO qualification course for the UAS, additional IO qualification procedures will be developed by DES, USAACE&FR for UA IOs who are already qualified per paragraph 4 22c(1) or (2) of this regulation. d. The UAS with test flight procedures published in an appropriate ATM will be test flown by qualified maintenance IOs. e. Qualified maintenance IOs must be designated, in writing, by unit commanders. They must be qualified and current in the UAS to be flown and meet standardization requirements of the appropriate ATM. f. Maintenance qualified IOs must comply with procedures in the appropriate UAS maintenance test flight manual. g. Contractor maintenance operators will be qualified in accordance with the provisions of AR Standardization instructor operator a. The SO will primarily train and evaluate IOs and other SOs. The SO has technical supervision of the unit standardization program as specified by the unit commander. The SO is the commander s technical advisor; advises the commander on all levels of UAS standardization within the command; and assists the commander to develop, implement, evaluate, and manage the unit s ATP. b. The IOs will be designated, in writing, as SOs by the unit commander and be qualified and current in the UAS to be flown and/or operated. Commanders may authorize SOs to instruct and evaluate from any designated crew station Unit trainer The UAS unit commander may appoint unit trainers (UTs) to conduct specialized training to assist in unit training programs. The UTs are prohibited from conducting emergency maneuvers or emergency procedures training. The UTs are also prohibited from evaluating ATM base and special tasks. Commanders may authorize UTs to instruct from the AO, PO, or, if appropriate, EO stations. They may also authorize UTs to validate successful completion of required training (for example, border and corridor qualifications, local area orientation, and other locally directed requirements). When performing UT duties, the UT must be qualified per the appropriate ATM and current in the UAS being flown and/or operated Crew chief The crew chief is a ground crewmember who is required to perform duties that are essential to the flight operations of the UAS. The crew chief is responsible for coordinating actions of all ground crewmembers and will coordinate all actions as directed by the commander of the aircraft. Crew chiefs will be selected based on their level of experience, maturity, judgment, and ability to effectively mitigate risk to the aircraft and ground crewmembers. They will a. Meet the requirements of para 4 26c, below. b. Be selected for each flight and/or series of flights and listed on the DA Form c. Be trained to perform crew chief duties according to the unit SOP. d. Be designated, in writing, by the unit commander. e. Train and evaluate crew chiefs and other ground crewmembers designated according to paragraph 4 26c, below. f. Assist the SO with supervision and management of the ground crewmember training program Unmanned Aircraft System ground crewmember a. The UAS ground crewmembers (mechanics and technicians) that perform duties on the UAS that are essential to specific phases of the maintenance mission will be (1) MOS and ASI qualified to perform UAS and/or aviation maintenance operations. (2) Trained to perform their duties in accordance with the appropriate technical manuals and unit training SOP. (3) If required to perform duties as a technical inspector, designated (in writing) by the UAS unit commander. 16 AR August 2006/RAR 2 July 2010 NCRSASL - 245

256 b. The UAS ground crewmembers that are authorized to start and runup for maintenance operational checks (mechanics and technicians) will (1) Undergo appropriate normal and emergency procedures training conducted by an IO. (2) Be MOS and ASI qualified to perform UAS operations. (3) Be evaluated semiannually by an IO on all functions they are required to perform. (4) Be trained by an IO/SO to perform their duties in accordance with the appropriate technical manuals and unit training SOP. (5) Have written authorization from the commander. This authorization must specify the tasks to be performed and will be posted in their IATF. c. The UAS ground crewmembers (operators, crew chief, mechanics, and technicians) that perform duties on the UAS that are essential to specific phases of the flight mission will (1) Undergo appropriate normal and emergency procedures training conducted by an instructor operator IO/SO. (2) Be MOS and ASI qualified to perform UAS operations. (3) Be evaluated semiannually by a crew chief or IO on all functions they are required to perform. (4) Have written authorization from the commander. This authorization must specify the tasks to be performed and will be posted in their IATF. (5) Be trained by an IO/SO or crew chief to perform their duties in accordance with the appropriate ATM, technical manuals, and unit training SOP Unmanned Aircraft System ground observer a. The ground observer is trained to assist the AC in the duties associated with collision avoidance, including but not limited to, avoidance of other traffic, clouds, obstructions, and terrain. They are responsible for the visual deconfliction of airspace for UA while operating in the National Airspace System when required. Aids to vision, such as binoculars, field glasses, or telephoto television may be employed as long as their field of view does not adversely affect the surveillance task. The visual limitation will specify both a lateral and vertical distance and shall be regarded as a maximum distance from the observer where a determination of a conflict with another aircraft can be made. This distance is predicated on the observer s normal unaided vision. Corrective lenses, spectacles, and contact lenses may be used. Ground observers will meet the requirements of medical fitness as outlined in AR , chapter 2; they must also abide by 14 CFR For duties as a ground observer, the inability to distinguish and identify without confusion the color of an object, substance, material, or light that is uniformly colored a vivid red or vivid green is disqualifying. b. Commanders will develop and publish policies and procedures for ground observers within units under their command. Commanders will establish a training and certification program for ground observers to ensure standardization and understanding of the mission and airspace management process for personnel defined in paragraphs (1) through (7), below. When required for operations, the ground observer will attend the mission brief and be in place at the required observer position prior to takeoff and/or launch operations. Ground observer training will include at a minimum, but not limited to (1) Identifying hazards to flight, communicating hazards, and advising the AC on actions to avoid mishaps. (2) Establishing two-way communication with the controlling shelter. (3) Distinguishing airfield layout and usable runways, populated and/or congested areas, dimensions of airfield airspace, SUA surrounding the home airfield, and points of contact for ATC. (4) Determining typical approach and departure patterns for the UAS, as well as airfield traffic patterns. (5) Understanding radio calls and procedures, and call signs required for flight operations. (6) Knowing UAS and manned aircraft lighting requirements. (7) Being familiar with the radio and having observer position orientation. c. All observers must have an understanding of applicable federal aviation, ICAO, host-nation regulations, and DOD FLIP applicable to the airspace where the UA will operate. Observers must not perform crew duties for more than one UAS at a time. Observers are not allowed to perform concurrent duties both as operator and observer. d. Ground observers will be evaluated semiannually according to the unit SOP and training program. Section III Standardization Unmanned Aircraft System Standardization Program a. The UAS Standardization Program is designed to ensure a high degree of efficiency in accomplishing the combat mission of the UAS force. This will be achieved by command supervision, employment of standard UAC tasks, use of s t a n d a r d p u b l i c a t i o n s, a n d m a i n t a i n i n g a d i s c i p l i n e d U A C f o r c e b y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f f r e q u e n t t e s t s a n d f l i g h t evaluations. b. Commanders will (1) Implement standardization policies and procedures. AR August 2006/RAR 2 July 2010 NCRSASL

257 (2) Ensure that Army UAS are operated according to standard procedures in ATMs and operator s manuals. ( 3 ) D e s i g n a t e i n s t r u c t o r s, e x a m i n e r s, e v a l u a t o r s, a n d u n i t t r a i n e r s i n s u p p o r t o f i n s t a l l a t i o n s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n committees. (4) Ensure that required training, tests, and flight evaluations have been completed. (5) Review and approve policies of standardization programs. c. The UAS unit SOP will be approved by the first O 5 in the chain of command Aviation Resource Management Survey a. The Aviation Resource Management Survey (ARMS) program assists the commander in assessing the readiness and resource management of all assigned aviation units. The ARMS evaluates the management of unit aviation programs, provides staff assistance, and identifies internal and systemic issues for resolution. The focus of the ARMS includes all aviation components of the brigades and will be conducted on all UAS units. The ARMS teams may be augmented by subject matter experts (SMEs) from subordinate organizations as necessary to provide additional manpower or supplement nonorganic expertise. Separate UAS platoons that are geographically separated from their parent organization may be surveyed at the discretion of the commander. b. The ACOM, ASCC, DRU, and NGB may field their own teams or designate another agency to conduct the ARMS for them. The ARMS teams will be composed of SMEs and may be drawn from Active Army, Reserve Component, DA civilian ranks, or contractors. The ARMS teams will be augmented by SMEs from subordinate units to ensure an effective survey. c. The ACOM, ASCC, DRU, and NGB aviation standardization committees or their designated ARMS agency will maintain an ARMS guide that outlines all applicable functional areas to be surveyed. As a minimum, the areas to be surveyed will include: flight operations, standardization, tactical operations, logistics, maintenance, safety and command support programs, petroleum operations, aviation medicine, training, air field, and air traffic services at non- Installation Management Agency airfields and heliports. d. An ARMS will be conducted for all Active Army and Reserve Component units every 24 to 36 months or as directed by the ACOM ASCC, DRU, or NGB and should be coordinated with DES for assessment of standardization and proficiency of crewmembers through flight evaluations. Units may be surveyed more frequently based on location, mission, or as an integral part of the commander s validation of unit predeployment readiness or as directed by HQDA, the branch chief, or the ACOM, ASCC, DRU, or NGB. e. The ARMS findings will be provided to the surveyed units upon completion and an executive summary of the survey results will be forwarded to the unit through command channels. Results will be made available upon request for HQDA and the branch chief. The ARMS findings and trends will be presented during the Aviation Senior Leaders Conference Army Command, Army Service Component Command, Direct Reporting Unit, and National Guard Bureau Army Aviation Standardization Committees a. Commanders monitor the implementation of the U.S. Army Aviation Standardization Program. They provide the command with a continuing assessment of the program. b. The UAS unit commanders will coordinate with the aviation brigade standardization committee. In the absence of an aviation brigade, the UAS unit commander will coordinate with the nearest aviation unit (for example, flight detachment). c. Aviation standardization committees will be organized to (1) Recommend and review directives, provide guidance, and respond to specific inquiries and requests. (2) Coordinate requests for support from subordinate aviation units. (3) Prepare and review recommended changes to aviation standardization literature and forward to proponents. (4) Develop ARMS checklists for command approval. (5) Write and publish supplements to this regulation. (6) Meet at the call of the chairman. Note. Funds for travel, per diem, and overtime (if required) will be provided by the member s parent organization. d. Members will be designated, in writing, by the commander as follows: (1) A chairman and secretary. (2) Commander of subordinate aviation unit. (3) An aviation safety officer, aviation maintenance officer, flight surgeon, aircraft standardization instructor pilot (SP), helicopter SP, instrument flight examiner, maintenance test-flight evaluator, tactical operations officer, master gunner, and air traffic services representative. (4) An UA system IO/SO provided by UAS unit commanders. e. Standardization and training issues that require action by USAACE&FR or presentation at the Aviation Senior Leaders Conference will be addressed to Commander, U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence and Fort Rucker 18 AR August 2006/RAR 2 July 2010 NCRSASL - 247

258 (ATZQ ES), Fort Rucker, AL Issues that require action by HQDA will be sent to the Deputy Chief of Staff, G 3/5/7 (DAMO AV), 400 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC U.S. Army Aviation Senior Leaders Conference a. Mission. Army aviation commanders meet annually to recommend general policy for implementing the U.S. Army Aviation Standardization Program. They review issues affecting the capability of commanders to perform missions with aviation assets. b. Composition. The conference chairman is the Commander, USAACE&FR. Membership consists of aviation unit commanders (O 6 and above); ACOM, ASCC, DRU, and NGB aviation officers; and other persons designated by the chairman. c. Direction and control. (1) Commanders will meet in a formal session at least annually at the call of the chairman. Approved conference minutes will be forwarded to members for further distribution to subordinate aviation units. (2) The chairman will carry out functions relating to the standardization program on a continuing basis and will monitor tasking requirements resulting from the commander s conference. Activities are subject to review by the full membership at the next regular meeting. Note. Funds for travel, per diem, and overtime, if needed, will be provided by the member s parent organization. d. Correspondence. Issues to be presented at the annual conference will be addressed to Commander, U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence and Fort Rucker (ATZQ TD), Fort Rucker, AL Other standardization and training issues requiring resolution throughout the year should be sent to Commander, U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence and Fort Rucker (ATZQ ES), Fort Rucker, AL U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence and Fort Rucker The Aviation Branch is the proponent agency for the U.S. Army Aviation Standardization Program. In addition to the responsibilities listed in paragraph 1 4f, the USAACE&FR will a. Act as reviewing agency for Army UAS training, standardization, and technical publications to ensure that they are standardized, accurate, and do not duplicate each other according to AR This is accomplished by the DES (ATZQ ESL) Fort Rucker, through continuous review and coordination with users and proponents. b. Act as approval authority for all aviation POI, initial key personnel training, new equipment training, and associated training materials to include lesson plans and media. Submit to the Aviation Branch proponent, Director of Training and Doctrine (ATZQ TD), Fort Rucker, Alabama 36362, and TD@conus.army.mil. c. In coordination with ACOM, ASCC, DRU, and NGB ARMS teams, conduct ARMS for aviation training. Frequency for the conduct of these programs is 24 to 36 months. This includes flight evaluations conducted by DES to assess standardization and proficiency for crewmembers throughout the Army as directed by the branch chief or HQDA. d. In coordination with ACOM, ASCC, DRU, and NGB, conduct active assistance and evaluation programs for UAS training. Frequency for the conduct of these programs is 18 to 24 months. This includes evaluations conducted by DES (ATZQ ES), Fort Rucker, to assess standardization and proficiency of UAC throughout the Army as directed by HQDA. e. Advise HQDA and ACOM, ASCC, DRU, and NGB of the status of UAS standardization activities. The DES will also provide information about implementing UAS standardization policies and procedures Armywide. Chapter 5 Flight Procedures and Rules 5 1. General a. Army personnel engaged in the operation of Army UAS will comply with applicable (1) Federal aviation regulations, laws, and rules. (2) The ICAO regulations. (3) Host-country regulations, laws, and rules. (4) Military regulations. (5) Nonaviation federal and state laws applicable to Army aviation operations. (6) The DOD FLIP. (7) Aircraft operator s manuals and checklists. b. The DOD FLIP does not provide procedure charts for all airfields that have instrument approach procedures. Required procedure charts may be added to the DOD FLIP by direct contact with the USAASA, 9325 Gunston Road, AR August 2006/RAR 2 July 2010 NCRSASL

259 Suite N319, Fort Belvoir, VA , or the U.S. Army Aeronautical Services Detachment Europe. Use of commercial or host-country products must be approved by either USAASA or an overseas U.S. Army Aeronautical Services Detachment as a supplement to DOD FLIP, according to AR c. Smoking and/or open flames are prohibited in, or within 50 feet of, Army aircraft. d. Procedures for packaging, handling, and air transportation of dangerous materials are described in AR and FM Aircrews assigned to move dangerous materials in Army aircraft will comply with the requirements listed in these publications. e. Aircraft must be grounded during refueling, arming, and loading or unloading of flammable or explosive cargo. Aircraft will be grounded for maintenance according to the appropriate maintenance publication. f. Flight data recorders. (1) Cockpit voice recorders (CVRs), flight data recorders (FDRs), and digital source collectors (DSCs) that are installed on aircraft and in control stations and/or shelters should be operational for all flights. However, a nonoperational CVR, FDR, or DSC should not result in mission cancellation. Information collected by these devices may be classified or sensitive in nature and should be protected as such. (2) The commander will contact the U.S. Army Combat Readiness Center to ascertain appropriate recovery actions whenever an Army aircraft equipped with CVR/FDR/DSC (to include weapons video systems) is involved in a mishap or destroyed as a result of enemy action Preflight Before beginning a flight, UACs will acquaint themselves with the UAS mission, procedures, and rules. a. Planning. The operator will evaluate aircraft performance, departure, en route and approach data, NOTAM, and appropriate FLIP or DOD publications. b. Fuel requirements. At takeoff, the aircraft must have enough fuel to reach the destination and alternate airport (if required) and have a planned fuel reserve of (1) Vertical takeoff and landing. (a) Visual flight rules (VFR) 20 minutes at cruise. (b) Instrument flight rules (IFR) 30 minutes at cruise. (2) Fixed wing. (a) VFR (day) 30 minutes at cruise. (b) VFR (night) or IFR 45 minutes at cruise. Note. If the appropriate technical manual for an aircraft requires a higher value, or if cruise fuel requirement cannot be determined, technical manual requirements will be applied. c. Flight weather planning. Operators will obtain departure, en route, destination, and alternate (if used) weather information before takeoff. (1) Flight into icing conditions. Aircraft will not be flown into known or forecast severe icing conditions. If a flight is to be made into known or forecast moderate icing conditions, the aircraft must be equipped with adequate operational deicing or anti-icing equipment. (2) Flight into turbulence. Aircraft will not be intentionally flown into known or forecast extreme turbulence or into known severe turbulence. Aircraft will not be intentionally flown into forecast severe turbulence unless the ACOM, ASCC, or DRU commander, or the Chief, NGB has established clearance procedures and (a) Weather information is based on area forecasts. (b) Flights will be made in areas where encountering severe turbulence is unlikely. (c) Flights are for essential training or essential missions only. (d) Flight approval authorities are specified. (e) Flights are terminated or depart turbulence if severe turbulence is encountered. (3) Flight into thunderstorms. Aircraft will not be intentionally flown into thunderstorms. (4) VFR flight. Destination weather must be forecast to be equal to or greater than VFR minimums at estimated time of arrival (ETA) through one hour after ETA. When there are intermittent weather conditions, predominant weather will apply. (5) IFR flight. Destination weather must be forecast, at ETA through 1 hour after ETA, to be not less than (a) Ceiling 400 feet above the decision point as listed in the operator s manual. (b) Visibility 1 mile (1.61 kilometers). Note. When there are intermittent weather conditions, predominant weather will apply. (6) Area forecast. If there is no weather reporting service, the aviator may use the area forecast. (7) Weather briefing. Local commanders will establish policies specifying when DD Form (Flight Weather Briefing) is required to be filed with DD Form 175 (Military Flight Plan) and the minimum entries required on parts I 20 AR August 2006/RAR 2 July 2010 NCRSASL - 249

260 through V of locally briefed DD forms. Weather information for DD Form will be obtained from a military weather facility. If a military forecaster is not available, the AC will obtain a weather forecast according to DOD FLIP. Automated or computer-based systems may be used to obtain weather information if the system is approved by USAASA and the commander establishes a program to ensure UAC are thoroughly familiar with the system in use. For all IFR and VFR cross-country flights, the weather forecast will be void 1 hour and 30 minutes from the time the forecast is received provided the aircraft has not departed. Weather forecast may be extended after coordination with a weather facility. d. Flight plan. Aircraft will not be flown unless a flight plan (military or civil) has been filed or an operation log completed. When FAA Form (Flight Plan), DD Form 1801 (DOD International Flight Plan), or DD Form 175 are used, they will be filed according to DOD FLIP. The FAA Form can be obtained from the USAASA, 9325 Gunston Road, Suite N319, Fort Belvoir, VA Local commanders will establish policies specifying the flight plan or operation log to be used. (1) All Army UA that are instrumented for IFR flight and are flown by an instrument-rated operator will operate on IFR flight plans except when (a) Flight is primarily for VFR training. (b) Time will not permit mission completion under IFR. (c) Mission can only be accomplished under VFR. (d) Excessive ATC departure, en route, or terminal area delays are encountered. Note. Hazardous weather conditions must be avoided. (2) After departing a nonmilitary airfield, the AC will advise flight service station or other competent authority of the departure time. (3) Locally produced operation logs may be used for local flights. e. Alternate airfield planning. An alternate airfield is required when filing IFR to a destination under any of the following conditions: (1) The predominant weather at the destination is forecast, at ETA through 1 hour after ETA, to be less than (a) Ceiling 400 feet above the decision point as listed in the operator s manual. (b) Visibility 1 mile (1.61 kilometers). (2) An alternate is not required if descent from en route minimum altitude for IFR operation, approach, and landing can be made in VFR conditions. f. Alternate airfield selection. An alternate airfield may be selected when the worst weather condition for that airfield is forecast for ETA through 1 hour after ETA to be equal to or greater than ceiling 400 feet above the decision point as listed in the operator s manual and visibility 1 mile (1.61 kilometers) or VFR minimums and descent from en route minimum altitude for IFR operation, approach, and landing can be made in VFR conditions. g. Equipment requirements. Aircraft and Global Positioning System (GPS) that have been certified for IFR flight according to airworthiness release using GPS for approaches may execute these approaches under IFR conditions. h. Weight and balance. The AC will ensure (1) The accuracy of computations on the DD Form (Weight and Balance Clearance Form F Transport/ Tactical). (2) The DD Form is on file and accessible to the flight crew for the aircraft to be flown. (3) The weight and center of gravity will remain within allowable limits for the entire flight. Several DD Forms completed for other loadings also may be used to satisfy this requirement. In this case, the actual loading being verified must clearly be within the extremes of the loading shown on the DD Forms used for verification Departure procedures a. All operators will comply with published nonstandard IFR takeoff minimums and published UA departure procedures. Runway visual range may be used when takeoff is made from the runway for which runway visual range is reported. b. Special VFR flights within and departures from Class B, C, D, and E airspace are according to the Airspace Control Authority En route procedures a. Instrument meteorological conditions. During instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) flight, all instruments and communication equipment in the GCS will be kept in the on position and immediately available for use. b. Over-the-top flights. Aircraft will not be flown above a cloud or fog layer under VFR for more than 30 minutes unless (1) The UA and crew are authorized to conduct IMC flight. (2) All instrument flight rules and requirements can be met for the remaining flight. c. Communications AR August 2006/RAR 2 July 2010 NCRSASL

261 (1) IFR. Reports and radio phraseology will conform to DOD FLIP. (2) VFR. Operators will monitor appropriate frequencies and make position reports as required. d. Over flying sensitive areas. Operators shall avoid over flight of national security areas and wildlife conservation areas below 2,000 feet above ground level (AGL). Exceptions will be according to instructions in DOD FLIP Arrival procedures a. Approach. An approach may be initiated, regardless of ceiling and visibility. b. Missed approach. The procedures as directed by ATC will be flown. Additional approaches may be flown provided fuel, including reserve, is adequate. An ATC clearance must be requested and approved before proceeding to another airfield. A change of flight plan will be made according to FLIP if time permits. c. Traffic patterns. (1) Fixed-wing aircraft will be flown at 1,500 feet above the surface of the airport unless deviation is required to maintain proper cloud clearance. Exceptions will be as prescribed in FLIP or as directed by ATC. (2) Helicopter traffic patterns at Army heliports and airfields are normally flown at 700 feet AGL. At other airports, helicopters and vertical takeoff and landing aircraft will avoid the flow of airplane traffic. d. Landing. An aircraft will not be flown to the designated minimum safe altitude established for that system by the operator s manual, local SOP for the airfield of intended landing, or as directed by ATC unless the following exist: (1) The approach threshold of the runway, or the approach lights or other markings, identifiable with the approach end of the runway or landing area, must be visible through onboard optical systems to the operator. (2) The aircraft must be in a position from which a safe approach to the runway or landing area can be made. e. Closing flight plans. When the flight terminates, the AC will ensure that the flight plan is closed as shown in DOD FLIP Emergency recovery procedures Emergency recovery procedures will be developed as a contingency plan for IMC. Recovery procedures will be developed using approved DOD and/or U.S. Government procedures in the area of operations and will be coordinated with the servicing ATC. In locations without approved DOD and/or U.S. Government procedures, an emergency recovery procedure will be developed and coordinated with the servicing ATC. Pending approval, these recovery procedures will only be used in VMC or during an actual emergency. The risk associated with the recovery procedure will be mitigated through the mission approval process and further defined in unit SOP. Manual entry of waypoint data is permissible when using emergency GPS procedures. Flight in IMC which violates FAA, host country, or ICAO regulations will be considered deviations according to paragraph 1 6 of this regulation and will be treated according to paragraph 2 11 of this regulation Use of airports, heliports, and other landing areas a. The UACs may operate Army UAS at airports and heliports classified as military, Federal Government, or public only if the facility is suitable for operations and necessary SUA (see para 2 9) provisions have been implemented (AR 95 2). b. Commanders may authorize the use of other temporary landing areas off military reservations and Governmentleased training areas. They must first obtain approval of the landowner or the approving authority and comply with the landing area requirements of the state or host country. Commanders will consult with the appropriate DARR or host nation aviation agency (AR 95 2). c. The installation or field training exercise commander will set policies on the use of UAS landing sites on military reservations and field training areas. d. In the event of emergency conditions necessitating landing at other than approved landing facilities, UACs should be aware that they may be charged for use of private facilities on public airports. Chapter 6 Safety of Flight Messages and Aviation Safety Action Messages 6 1. General a. The SOF messages pertain to any defect or hazardous condition, actual or potential, where a high risk safety condition or select medium risk safety conditions exist as determined in accordance with AR b. The ASAs pertain to any defect or hazardous condition, actual or potential, where a low risk safety condition or select medium risk safety conditions exist as determined in accordance with AR The ASAs convey maintenance, technical or general information, which will not require risk-mitigating actions, performed before the next flight and/or ground operations. 22 AR August 2006/RAR 2 July 2010 NCRSASL - 251

262 c. For specific information on SOFs, ASAs, SOF funding, and the safety message process, see AR Exception to provisions of safety message a. The ACOM, ASCC, or DRU commander, or the Chief, NGB may authorize temporary exception from safety message requirements. Exceptions may only occur when combat operations or matter of life or death in civil disasters or other emergencies are so urgent that they override the consequences of continued UA operation. b. Requests for waivers are submitted through the requesting unit s ACOM, ASCC, or DRU to the Commander, AMCOM (AMSAM SF A, Safety Office). To expedite processing of waiver requests, contact the safety POC in the message for assistance. c. The Commander, AMCOM, will staff request for waivers for messages that affect fleetwide groundings and those referred for Army safety action team coordination through DCS, G 4 before approval. d. The Commander, AMCOM, is the approval authority for waivers to provisions of safety messages. Chapter 7 Weight and Balance 7 1. Overview The UA platforms shall be within weight and balance limitations (as specified in the appropriate UAS operator s manual) for the entire duration of a flight. This chapter provides a weight and balance control system for operation of the Army UA. a. The CG, U.S. Army Materiel Command (AMC) will supervise the direction of overall command activities involving UA weight and balance. b. The CG, TRADOC shall monitor the overall training of UA weight and balance (para 1 4j(2)). The CG, TRADOC will (1) Train operational unit weight and balance technicians in the following procedures: (a) Weighing UA. (b) Computing weight and balance. (c) Maintaining weight and balance records for Army UA. (2) Train Army UAS operators and noncrewmembers in computing weight and balance. (3) Train Army personnel to provide UA weight and balance services at support maintenance facilities. c. The CG, AMCOM is the technical proponent for all U.S. Army UA weight and balance. The CG, AMCOM will (1) Establish UA weight and balance requirements and procedures in coordination with other Army agencies. (2) Assist HQDA and AMC in the development of UA weight and balance policy. (3) Prepare and make technical data available on UA weight and balance. (4) Procure and deliver weight and balance data for Army UA. (5) Make engineering services available to assist service activities in solving UA weight and balance problems. (6) Provide technical assistance to contracting authorities in the certification of civilian contractor qualifications for weight and balance. d. Commanders of installations and units that operate, maintain, repair, or modify Army UA will (1) Ensure effective application of these policies and procedures. (2) Develop command directives to implement these policies and procedures. (3) Appoint, in writing, qualified weight and balance technicians Aircraft weight and balance classifications a. To qualify as an Army weight and balance technician, an individual must satisfactorily complete the 15-series career management field basic NCO course or a comparable Army weight and balance course approved by TRADOC. Civilian contractor qualifications shall be verified by the contracting authority. The AMCOM may approve equivalent training for civilian contractors that fulfills the intent of this paragraph. b. If a weight and balance technician trained in accordance with paragraph a, above, is not available in the unit, commanders may delegate the task. c. Weight and balance technicians will (1) Prepare and maintain up-to-date and accurate individual UA weight and balance files as described in paragraph 7 4, below, for all UA under their jurisdiction. (2) Perform the required review of individual UA weight and balance files as described in paragraph 7 6, below, for all UA under their jurisdiction. AR August 2006/RAR 2 July 2010 NCRSASL

263 (3) Comply with UA weight and balance provisions of applicable modification work orders or technical manuals pertaining to UA modifications. (4) Provide training and assistance in the use of UA weight and balance data and load adjuster devices, when applicable. (5) Assure UA under their jurisdiction are weighed according to paragraph 7 7, below Unmanned aircraft weight and balance classifications Army UA weight and balance classifications are stated in the appropriate operator s manual and are defined as follows: a. Class 1a UA: recommended weight or center-of-gravity limits cannot be exceeded by loading arrangements normally employed in tactical operations and, therefore, need no loading control. b. Class 1b UA: weight or center-of-gravity limits sometimes can be exceeded by loading arrangements normally used in tactical operations. Therefore, limited loading control is needed. c. Class 2 UA: weight or center-of-gravity limits can be readily exceeded by loading arrangements normally used in tactical operations. Therefore, a high degree of loading control is needed. Also, all UA where weight and balance class is not stated in the operator s manual shall be considered Class Unmanned aircraft weight and balance file a. A weight and balance file is required for all Class 1b UA and Class 2 UA. This file shall contain all of the UA s weight and balance data. The UA designation and serial number shall be noted on the file folder. Each UA shall have its own file that shall be maintained in the historical files as well as a copy of the DD Form in the logbook at the launch and recovery site during all UA launch and recovery operations. b. The file shall include the following forms and charts which shall be completed and retained in accordance with instructions of TM (1) DD Form 365 (Record of Weight and Balance Personnel). (2) DD Form (Chart A Basic Weight Checklist Record). (3) DD Form (Form B Aircraft Weighing Record). (4) DD Form (Chart C Basic Weight and Balance Record). (5) Chart E (Loading Data and Special Weighing Instructions). The original Chart E placed in the weight and balance file by the UA manufacturer shall be retained in the file until a revised Chart E is presented in the UAS maintenance manual. Following publication of the Chart E in the maintenance manual, the Chart E in the UA file shall no longer be required and shall be destroyed locally. (6) DD Form Sufficiently completed DD Forms shall be in the file, enabling the AO to determine proper UA loading for any normal anticipated unit mission and verify that the weight and center of gravity shall remain within allowable limits for the entire flight. c. Electronic computer data sheets may be used instead of any of the DD Form 365-series when information is identical to that required on the DD 365-series. Any computer data sheets which meet this requirement may be used. The Army standard automated system (Automated Weight and Balance System, Version 9.2 or later) fulfills these requirements. The system program may be obtained from Commander, U.S. Army Research, Development, and Engineering Command (AMSRD AMR AE A) (Mass Properties), Bldg 4488, Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, AL For nonstandard Army UA, the commercial equivalents of basic weight checklists, loading data, and weighting instructions may be substituted for the DD Forms 365-series and Chart E. All of the above forms are available through normal publications supply channels Removal, addition, or relocation of unmanned aircraft equipment When the UAS equipment that is part of UA s basic weight is added to, removed from, or relocated within the UA because of maintenance or specific mission requirements, flight in this changed configuration shall not be accomplished unless the weight and balance change is documented by one of the following methods: a. Treating the additions, removals, or relocations as a permanent change by making entries on the DD Form and establishing a new basic weight and moment. Also, if the change in basic weight or moment is beyond the limits stated in TM , prepare new DD Forms that reflect the new basic weight and moment to replace those in the weight and balance file. b. If the changes are of a temporary nature, make entries in accordance with The Army Maintenance Management System UAS for a period not to exceed 90 days. Temporary equipment changes shall be considered changes in aircraft loading. These changes shall be entered in the Corrections table of the DD Form with adjustments to the totals according to TM Reviewing the weight and balance file a. Review of the weight and balance file is required for all Class 1b UA and Class 2 UA. All DD Forms in the UA weight and balance file shall be checked for accuracy in accordance with the criteria established in TM 24 AR August 2006/RAR 2 July 2010 NCRSASL - 253

264 at least every 90 days. New forms must be prepared if changes are required. If no changes are required, the DD Forms shall be redated and initialed in the date block to certify their currency. b. In addition, all weight and balance records shall, as a minimum, be reviewed every 12 months. The date due window shall follow TM requirements for recurring special inspections. This review must include a weight and balance inventory of the UA and the following statement entered on the DD Form 365 3: Annual review and inventory completed. The date and adjusted basic weight and moment shall accompany this entry Unmanned aircraft weighing a. Each Class 1b UA and Class 2 UA shall be weighed when (1) Overhaul or major airframe repairs have been accomplished. (2) Modifications of 1 percent or greater of the UA s basic weight have been applied. (3) Any modifications or component replacements (including painting) have been made for which the weight and center of gravity cannot be accurately computed. (4) Weight and center-of-gravity data records are suspected to be in error. (5) The period since the previous weighing reaches 36 months for a Class 1b UA and 24 months for a Class 2 UA. The date due reweigh window shall follow TM requirements for a recurring special inspection. b. The weight records (365-series forms) supplied with a new UA may be used instead of an initial weighing. c. If these weighing requirements are not met, the UA status shall change to RED X until they are met. d. Any maintenance facility providing weighing service shall ensure that all UA weighing equipment under its jurisdiction has been tested and certified for accuracy according to specified technical manuals and at the intervals required. e. Ninety day weighing deferment: (1) The unit commander may request a 90 day deferment from weighing UA when all means have been exhausted while operating in a combat theater. (2) Send the commander s deferment request with a copy of the UA weight and balance file to the following a p p r o v i n g a u t h o r i t y : C o m m a n d e r, U. S. A r m y R e s e a r c h, D e v e l o p m e n t, a n d E n g i n e e r i n g C o m m a n d ( A M S R D A M R A E A ) ( M a s s P r o p e r t i e s ), B u i l d i n g , R e d s t o n e A r s e n a l, A L o r e - m a i l aeromechanics@amrdec.army.mil. Chapter 8 Nonstandard Unmanned Aircraft Systems Section I Acquisition and Use 8 1. General This chapter details classification, acquisition, and use of nonstandard UASs. a. The UASs classified as nonstandard by the Army are normally acquired from other Services or federal agencies or were previously standardized but no longer adhere to established criteria. These UASs are used to fill operational requirements instead of standard Army UASs. Army standard UASs reconfigured or altered for special use (for example, testing, special mission, and modification) are not normally classified as nonstandard UASs within the context of this regulation. b. Acquisition and use of nonstandard UASs within the Army will occur when sufficient standard UASs are not available to accomplish specific missions or operations. All other UASs in the Army inventory are standard UASs. Selected trainers, prototype, test bed, and UASs procured in such a low density that treating them as standard UASs would present a burden to the system may be accounted for as nonstandard UASs Policy The following is DA policy concerning nonstandard UASs: a. Requests for nonstandard UASs will be approved only against a DA-approved UAS authorization when standard Army UASs are not available. Nonstandard UASs will be replaced when standard Army UASs become available. When requests for nonstandard UASs have been approved by DA, the AMCOM will take the necessary acquisition action. Requests for nonstandard UASs will be forwarded through the ACOM, ASCC, DRU, and NGB to Commander, U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command, (AMSAM I L), Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, AL for processing to DA. b. Requests for authorization to obtain nonstandard UAS will be transmitted through channels to Deputy Chief of Staff, G 4 (DALO AV), 500 Army Pentagon, Washington DC and include (1) The MTDS of the UASs desired or type and requirements of missions to be fulfilled. AR August 2006/RAR 2 July 2010 NCRSASL

265 (2) Terms of the request (transfer or loan) and if nonreimbursable or reimbursable. (3) Budget program funds to be used for support of the UASs and affirmation that funds will be made available in current and subsequent fiscal year funding programs. (4) Any modification requirements, including minimum required equipment. (5) Full justification based on essentiality of the UASs to accomplish missions of the requesting command or activity. c. All operating costs, less depot maintenance and procuring spare parts associated with the acquisition of nonstandard UASs, will be done by the gaining command. The AMC, United States Army Reserve, and ARNG are responsible for programming and budgeting for depot maintenance of nonstandard UASs. Modification of nonstandard UASs (in a nondevelopmental program) will normally be funded by the Army Procurement Appropriation (for acquisition of modification kits) and by the Active Army s depot maintenance program (for the installation of the kits.) d. Requests for disposition instructions for nonstandard UASs will be forwarded through command channels to DA. Serviceable and unserviceable economically repairable UASs will be reassigned against other requirements or disposed of according to AR and TB Commands and activities relinquishing these UASs will not normally be provided a replacement nonstandard UASs. The UASs considered uneconomically repairable will be reported to DA according to TB Redistribution of nonstandard UASs is not authorized unless approved by DA. e. Commands and activities acquiring nonstandard UASs will be required to provide support from their own operating funds. Repair parts that are available in the DOD supply system may be procured through normal Army supply channels or through cross-service agreements with other military Services. All other repair parts will be procured locally. All nonstandard UASs maintenance requirements that are beyond the capability of the owning or supporting commands and activities will be accomplished by contract. (This paragraph is not applicable to UASs maintained under the existing contractor logistics support contract administered by AMCOM.) f. Commanders having nonstandard UASs will be responsible for assuring continued UAS airworthiness through scheduled maintenance programs that meet all DOD or, as required, FAA published standards. The UASs obtained through the confiscated or excess aircraft program will be maintained according to FAA standards only. Commercial operator s manuals, service letters, and bulletins published by the UAS manufacturer and FAA Airworthiness Directives (ADs) service bulletins will be ordered and maintained by the unit. When an AD note is issued by the FAA that is required to be completed prior to further flight, AMCOM will issue corresponding SOF messages according to chapter 6 of this regulation. Compliance with emergency AD notes will be reported directly to Commander, U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMSAM SF A), Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, AL g. When upgrade modifications are made to a confiscated or excess nonstandard UASs with a military equivalent, the modification will conform as closely as possible to its standard military counterpart provided a FAA-type certificate or supplemental type certificate exists for that modification and AMCOM approval is obtained. Equivalent nonstandard UASs may be included with their standard counterpart when a Product Improvement Program is applied to the standard UASs. h. Expenditures in funds and man-hours for alterations or reconfiguration will be held to a minimum. Initial requests to alter or reconfigure nonstandard UASs when first delivered will be compiled into a single package and submitted through command channels to AMCOM for approval; they will contain detailed justification including scope of work to be performed. Subsequent requests will be treated in the same manner. Alteration or reconfiguration of loaned nonstandard UASs must be consistent with any requirements in the specific loan agreement regarding restoration of the UAS to its original configuration. i. All nonstandard UASs will be reported on DA Form 1352 (Army Aircraft Inventory, Status and Flying Time) according to AR Maintenance forms authorized by DA Pam will be used as prescribed in the published Logistical Support Plan. Other forms may be used for local management purposes as desired. j. A DA flying hour program will not be published for nonstandard UASs. Commanders will establish an annual Fiscal Year Flying Hour Program based on requirements and capability to support such a program. Utilization criteria prescribed in AR will be the basis for justifying retention of nonstandard UASs. k. When more than one command owns a type of nonstandard UAS, DCS, G 3/5/7 (DAMO AV) will designate a proponent. The proponent will ensure compliance with the requirements outlined in this paragraph and ensure standardization of publications and training for the platform Logistical support The AMCOM will retain responsibility and designate a central point of contact for logistical support guidance, SOF matters, and technical guidance, including configuration control. 26 AR August 2006/RAR 2 July 2010 NCRSASL - 255

266 Section II Training and Standardization 8 4. Waiver authority Nonstandard UAS training and standardization requests for waivers to paragraphs 8 5 through 8 9 will be forwarded through the appropriate ACOM, ASCC, DRU, or NGB to DAMO AV for approval Technical publications a. Technical literature for specific nonstandard UASs will be made available through normal publications channels to the units using the UASs. Operator s manuals, checklists, maintenance manuals, and related publications for nonstandard UASs will be obtained from the existing factory stocks or from the military Service supplying the UASs. b. The using unit will update these publications with changes from the manufacturer or the military Service supplying the UASs. They will also prepare new or revised technical literature for nonstandard UASs not supported by official publications. These publications will be coordinated with AMCOM where possible and submitted through the ACOM, ASCC, DRU, and NGB to Deputy Chief of Staff, G 3/5/7, (DAMO AV), 400 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC for approval Training and standardization publications a. Training and aviation flight standardization literature for specific nonstandard UASs will be made available through normal publications supply channels to the units using the UAS. If possible, the training and aviation flight standardization program will apply to the operation of nonstandard UASs. The policy in this paragraph applies except when established procedures cannot be followed because of extremely low UAS density or short duration of UAS use (less than 6 months). b. The POI and flight training guide (FTG) will be submitted through the ACOM, ASCC, DRU, and NGB to U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence and Fort Rucker (ATZQ TD) (Directorate of Training and Doctrine (DOTD)), Fort Rucker, AL or ATZQ TD@rucker.army.mil, for approval before they can be used. The ATMs will be submitted through the ACOM, ASCC, DRU, and NGB to U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence and Fort Rucker (ATZQ ES) (DES), Fort Rucker, AL , for review and then submitted to Deputy Chief of Staff, G 3/5/7, (DAMO AV), 400 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC for approval Qualification training The ACOM, ASCC, DRU, and NGB aviation standardization committee will develop nonstandard UAS training in accordance with AR The POI and FTG will be submitted through the ACOM, ASCC, DRU, and NGB to U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence and Fort Rucker (ATZQ TD) (DOTD), Fort Rucker, AL for approval before training begins Flight evaluations When the IO or SO is not available to administer flight evaluations in nonstandard UASs, the installation or area aviation standardization committee will request support. The ACOM, ASCC, DRU, and NGB aviation standardization committee, other installation area committees, or the Commander, USAACE&FR may provide support. If support cannot be provided, the area commander, whose installation aviation standardization committee has jurisdiction, may authorize the flight evaluation to be made in a UAS of similar design, operation, and flight characteristics. The commander may request a waiver of the evaluation requirements Qualification requirements for instructor operators a. The ACOM, ASCC, DRU, and NGB aviation standardization committee in coordination with the Commander, USAACE&FR (ATZQ ES) help establish the content of IO training in nonstandard UASs for which no IO training program exists in the ATMs. The proposed POI and FTG will be submitted through the ACOM, ASCC, DRU, and N G B t o U. S. A r m y A v i a t i o n C e n t e r o f E x c e l l e n c e a n d F o r t R u c k e r ( A T Z Q T D ) ( D O T D ), F o r t R u c k e r, A L or ATZQ D@rucker.army.mil for approval before training begins. b. When an SO is not available to administer a flight evaluation in the UAS in which an IO designation is sought, the evaluation may be conducted in another UAS in the same category. The examinee must be qualified and current in the UAS used for the evaluation. AR August 2006/RAR 2 July 2010 NCRSASL

267 Appendix A References Section I Required Publications AR 15 6 Procedures for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers (Cited in para 2 11c.) AR The Department of the Army Freedom of Information Act Program (Cited in paras 2 11c, 3 6d.) AR 34 4 Army Standardization Policy (Cited in para 4 32a.) AR 40 8 Temporary Flying Restrictions Due to Exogenous Factors (Cited in paras 3 10, 4 4.) AR Standards of Medical Fitness (Cited in paras 1 4h, 2 1g(1), 4 2d, 4 9c, 4 27c.) AR 95 2 Airspace, Airfield/Heliports, Flight Activities, Air Traffic Control, and Navigational Aids (Cited in paras 2 8d, 2 9d, 2 11, 3 3c, 4 4, 5 7.) AR 95 20/DCMA INST /AFI /NAVAIRINST F/COMDTINST M Contractor s Flight and Ground Operations (Cited in paras 2 1b(3), 2 2c.) AR Criminal Investigation Activities (Cited in para 2 11a.) AR The Army Privacy Program (Cited in para 2 11c.) AR The Army Public Affairs Program (Cited in paras 3 3b, 3 3e.) AR Military Occupational Classification Structure Development and Implementation (Cited in para 4 6a.) DA Pam Functional Users Manual for the Army Maintenance Management System Aviation (TAMMS A) (Cited in paras 2 4a, 3 12a, 8 2i.) DA Pam The Army Maintenance Management System (TAMMS) User s Manual (Cited in paras 2 4a, 3 12a.) FAA Order Special Operations (Cited in paras 2 8e, 2 9d) (Available at FM Air Traffic Services Operations (Cited in para 2 9c.) FM Airfield and Flight Operations Procedures (Cited in paras 2 7b, 3 7c.) FM 3 52 Army Airspace Command and Control in a Combat Zone (Cited in para 2 9c.) 28 AR August 2006 NCRSASL - 257

268 JP 3 52 Joint Doctrine for Airspace Control in the Combat Zone (Cited in para 2 9c) (Available at doctrine/index.html.) TB AVN Army Aviation Flight Information Bulletin (Cited in para 3 3c.) TM Army Aviation Engineering Manual for Weight and Balance (Cited in paras 7 4b, 7 5a, 7 5b, 7 6a.) Section II Related Publications A related publication is a source of additional information. The user does not have to read it to understand this regulation. AR United States Army Logistics Integration Agency (USALIA) AR 11 2 Managers Internal Control Program AR Airworthiness Qualification of Aircraft Systems AR Force Development and Documentation Consolidated Policies AR 95 1 Flight Regulations AR Unmanned Aircraft System Flight Regulations AR Operational Procedures for Aircraft Carrying Hazardous Materials AR Mission, Organization, and Training AR Management Information Control System AR Army Training and Leader Development AR The Army Safety Program AR Manpower Management AR Enlisted Assignments and Utilization Management AR Army Logistics Readiness and Sustainability AR Army Materiel Maintenance Policy AR August 2006 NCRSASL

269 AR Army Equipment Safety and Maintenance Notification System CTA Field and Garrison Furnishings and Equipment (Available at CTA Expendable/Durable Items (Available at DA Pam Army Accident Investigations and Reporting DA Pam Army Aviation Accident Prevention Program DA Pam Military Occupation Classification and Structure DODI Public Affairs Community Relations Policy Implementation (Available at FAR 1 Definitions and Abbreviations (Available at FAR 91 General Operating and flight Rules (Available at FM 5 19 Composite Risk Management FM Packaging of Materiel for Packing Freedom of Information Act (Available at Leaders Guide to Crew Endurance (Available at SB 8 75 Series Army Medical Department Supply Information (Available at cfm.) TB Maintenance Expenditure Limits for Army Aircraft (Available at TC Unmanned Aircraft Systems Commander s Guide and Aircrew Training Manual TC Small Unmanned Aircraft System Aircrew Training Manual TC Aeromedical Training for Flight Personnel TM General Aircraft Maintenance (General Maintenance And Practices), Volume 1 (Available at mil/etms/online.htm.) 30 AR August 2006 NCRSASL - 259

270 TM Aeronautical Equipment Maintenance Management Policies and Procedures (Available at etms/online.htm.) TM General Maintenance of Parachutes and Other Airdrop Equipment (Available at online.htm.) TM Preparing Hazardous Materials for Military Air Shipments (Available at 14 CFR 91 General Operating and Flight Rules (Available at 14 CFR Alcohol or Drugs (Available at 14 CFR (b)(2) ATC transponder and altitude reporting equipment and use (Available at 10 USC 3062 Policy; composition; organized peace establishment (Available at 49 USC 40102(a)(37) Definitions (Available at Section III Prescribed Forms This section contains no entries. Section IV Referenced Forms DA Form 11 2 Management Control Evaluation Certification Statement (Available through normal forms supply channels.) DA Form 759 Individual Flight Record and Flight Certificate Army DA Form Individual Flight Record and Flight Certificate Army, Aircraft Closeout Summary DA Form Individual Flight Record and Flight Certificate Army, Flying Hours Work Sheet DA Form Individual Flight Record and Flight Certificate Army, Flight Pay and flight Hours Work Sheet DA Form 1352 Army Aircraft Inventory, Status and Flying Time DA Form 2028 Recommended Changes to Publications and Blank Forms DA Form Army Aviator s Flight Record DA Form 2696 R Operational Hazard Report AR August 2006 NCRSASL

271 DA Form 3513 Individual Flight Records Folder, United States Army (Available through normal forms supply channels.) DA Form 4507 Crew Member Grade Slip DA Form R Maneuver/Procedure Grade Slip DA Form R Continuation Comment Slip (LRA) DA Form 4755 Employee Report of Alleged Unsafe or Unhealthful Working Conditions DA Form 5484 Mission Schedule/Brief DA Form 7120 R Commander s Task List DA Form R Crew Member Task Performance and Evaluation Requirements DA Form R Crew Member Task Performance and Evaluation Requirements Continuation Sheet DA Form R Crew Member Task Performance and Evaluation Requirements Remarks and Certification (LRA) DA Form 7122 R Crew Member Training Record (LRA) DD Form 175 Military Flight Plan DD Form 365 Record of Weight and Balance Personnel DD Form Chart A Basic Weight Checklist Record DD Form Form B Aircraft Weighing Record DD Form Chart C Basic Weight and Balance Record DD Form Weight and Balance Clearance Form F Transport/Tactical FAA Form Flight Plan (Can be obtained from the USAASA, 9325 Gunston Road, Suite N319, Fort Belvoir, VA ) Appendix B Instructions for Completing DA Form 5484 The briefer is responsible for ensuring that all key mission elements noted on the mission schedule/brief have been briefed according to paragraph 2 12 of this regulation and for documenting completion of the briefing on the mission schedule/brief. Mission briefings may be in the form of an air mission coordinator s brief, a detailed operations order, 32 AR August 2006 NCRSASL - 261

272 or locally developed briefing formats as long as all the minimum mandatory items are covered. The mission brief may be accomplished by telephonic or other means provided all key elements are addressed and recorded by both parties to the brief on the front side. Note. Mandatory for all flights. B 1. Page 1 a. Front side. (1) *Item 1: Date. (2) *Item 2: AC number Enter aircraft tail number. (3) *Item 3: PC(AC) Enter the name of the AC and seat designation. (4) *Item 4: PI(AO) Enter the name of the AO and seat designation. (5) *Item 5: Crewmembers Enter the names of the crew chief and external pilot. (6) *Item 6: FC Enter the authorized flight condition codes for the mission as described in paragraph 2 5 of this regulation. (7) *Item 7: Mission Enter the assigned mission number and/or title (that is, /air assault, maintenance test flight, APART, and so forth). (8) *Item 8: ETD/ETE Enter the estimated time of departure and the estimated time en route. (9) *Item 9: PC(AC) Aircraft commander s initials. (Initials are the AC s acknowledgment that he or she has been briefed by the qualified briefing officer and/or NCO on key elements of the mission). (10) *Item 10: Initials of a qualified briefing officer and/or NCO. (Initials of the briefing officer and/or CO along with AC indicates that step two of the briefing process has been completed according to paragraph 2 12b(2). (11) *Item 11: RAV Risk assessment value, calculated risk level for mission based on unit risk management program. (12) Item 12: MS Mission status, to be completed by the PC at the end of the mission using the following codes: (a) MC Mission completed as briefed. (b) NC Mission not completed as briefed; see remarks on the back of the schedule. (c) CX Canceled. (13) Remarks *Enter the name of the MC. Enter additional information for local use as desired; continue on the back if required. b. Back side. The back side of the mission schedule will be used to document necessary mission status remarks. (Example: 23 APR 09, MSN , mission canceled by S 3, 1/20 Arty, initials M.S.) B 2. Configuration of briefing The mission schedule/brief will be used to document the completion of required briefings. As a minimum, it will be maintained on file for the time period specified in this regulation. B 3. Use The mission schedule/brief is provided for the commander s use. Unit-developed forms may be used as long as all mandatory items are covered. B 4. Regulations, standing operating procedures, and policies Information contained on the mission schedule/brief does not relieve the UAC from the requirement to know and adhere to applicable regulations, SOPs, and policies. B 5. Command relationships Supporting and supported unit commanders will coordinate and designate command relationships to execute mission briefings when aircrews are separated from their parent unit. Appendix C Levels of Interoperability C 1. Purpose The provisions contained in this appendix cover levels of interoperability (LOI). It is intended to govern the operation of UAS by Army aviation crewmembers that have a 2000-series task requiring LOI operations. AR August 2006/RAR 2 July 2010 NCRSASL

273 C 2. Personnel authorized to perform manned unmanned operations a. The following criteria qualify personnel to fly and/or operate UASs from another airborne platform. (1) Manned unmanned team members that have completed an Army-approved LOI POI on the UAS MTDS and/or Army aircraft combination being utilized. (2) Are assigned to an organization that is assigned a LOI teaming mission which is reflected as 2000-series tasks in the crewmembers IATF. b. The UAS crewmembers in other U.S. Services that have (1) Complied with qualification, training, evaluation, and currency requirements of their Service or of this regulation for the UAS to be flown. (2) Written authorization from their Service and the owning ACOM, ASCC, or DRU commander. (3) At a minimum, a current flight physical as stated in paragraph 2 1 of this regulation. c. Civilian employees of Government agencies and Government contractors who have (1) Appropriate military or civilian certifications or ratings in the system(s). (2) Written authorization from the owning ACOM, ASCC, or DRU or Commander, USAACE&FR for units undergoing training at Fort Huachuca or Fort Rucker. (3) Necessary compliance with qualification, training, and evaluation requirements of this regulation, and the contract and/or statement of work for the UAS to be flown. C 3. Currency Manned unmanned team members that have performed 1 hour of LOI teaming, from the aircraft and/or UAS MTDS combination or approved simulator, at the respective levels of control, in the last 180 days. C 4. Levels of interoperability unmanned aircraft system control levels a. Level I. Reception of the secondary product. The LOI team members must be familiar with the operation of the remote video terminal or comparable device. No currency requirements. b. Level II. Direct data receipt. The LOI team members must have received training approved by the battalion commander on the data receipt terminal being utilized. No currency requirements. c. Level III. Payload control, direct data receipt. The LOI team members must meet the requirements of Level II control and have completed an Army approved POI on the sensor package being manipulated from their aerial platform and meet the currency requirements listed in paragraph C 3, above. d. Level IV. Flight control, payload control, direct data receipt, weapons system operations. The LOI team members exercising Level IV control must meet the requirements of Level III control and have completed an Army approved POI on the UAS being utilized. This POI will include training on any payload installed on the UAS and any weapons being fired to include laser designation systems. e. Level V. Level V UAS control is only authorized by LOI team members when performing an emergency procedure. C 5. Flight and training records a. The IATF will contain a task list with the 2000-series tasks the LOI team member is authorized to perform. b. The flying experience and qualification data for each LOI team member will be documented in the DA IFRF and IATF. Appendix D Small Unmanned Aircraft System Utilization D 1. Purpose The purpose of this appendix is to establish regulatory guidance for Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (SUASs) operations. The UASs designed for use by other than MOS-qualified UAC (for example, small and micro UASs such as the micro air vehicle and the Raven) are to be governed by provisions of this regulation and appendix D. Small and micro UASs training, qualification, and currency will be according to the appropriate ATM. All SUAS operator personnel will receive familiarization training in airspace structure and airspace management and/or coordination and will comply with paragraph 2 9 of this regulation. Only this appendix and specifically sighted references of this regulation are intended to control SUAS operations. D 2. Army Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems personnel The following personnel may fly and/or operate Army SUASs: a. The UACs who 34 AR August 2006/RAR 2 July 2010 NCRSASL - 263

274 (1) Are members of the Active Army, U.S. Army Reserve, or Army National Guard or are civilian employees of the U.S. Army. (2) Have complied with qualification, training, evaluation, and currency requirements of this appendix for the UAS to be flown and/or operated. b. Civilian employees of Government agencies and Government contractors who have (1) Appropriate military or civilian certifications or ratings in the system(s). (2) Written authorization from the owning ACOM, ASCC, DRU, NGB, or Commander, USAACE&FR. (3) Necessary compliance with qualification, training approved by USAACE&FR DOTD, evaluation, and currency requirements of appendix D of this regulation, the provisions of AR 95 20, and the contract and/or statement of work for the UAS to be flown. c. The UACs in other U.S. Services and/or USSOCOM who have (1) Complied with qualification, training approved by USAACE&FR DOTD, evaluation, and currency requirements of their Service or of appendix D of this regulation for the UAS to be flown. (2) Obtained written authorization from their Service and the senior MC (no lower than O 5). d. The UACs of foreign military services who have (1) Complied with qualification, training approved by USAACE&FR DOTD, evaluation, and currency requirements of their service or of appendix D of this regulation for the UAS to be flown. (2) Properly completed a foreign service disclaimer. (3) Obtained written authorization, including a disclaimer from their government absolving the U.S. Government from liability (unless a disclaimer is included under the provisions of an approved exchange program). The appropriate host ACOM, ASCC, DRU, or NGB must provide written authorization that will include, as a minimum, the purpose and duration of the authorization. D 3. Small Unmanned Aircraft System Training Program The SUAS Aircrew Training Program will be establish and operated according to TC D 4. Currency a. To be considered current, a SUAS operator must (1) Perform a launch, recovery, and a 15 minute flight of the SUAS (or utilization of a compatible simulator) every 30 consecutive days. (2) Perform in a launch, recovery, and a 15 minute flight of the SUAS every 150 consecutive days. b. Tracking of actual flight time for a flying hour requirement is impractical and is not required. Individual flight records folders are not required; however, documentation of flight operations (sorties) for the purpose of tracking currency is required. Commanders will establish procedures for maintenance of personal flight logs. A qualified sortie is a launch and recovery and 15 minute flight operations of the SUAS. c. The SUAS operator whose currency has lapsed must complete a proficiency flight evaluation according to the appropriate ATM. Simulators may not be used to reestablish currency. d. Waivers to currency may only be granted by Deputy Chief of Staff, G 3/5/7 (DAMO AV), 400 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC Note. Currency is not considered an element of the ATP. D 5. Semiannual proficiency and readiness test The semiannual proficiency and readiness test (S APART) measures an operator s proficiency and readiness. It consists of a written examination and a hands-on performance test evaluated by a master trainer (MT) who is current and qualified in the system to be evaluated. Mission qualified (MQ) operators must pass each component of the test during their S APART periods. The S APART periods are the 2 month periods ending on the last day of the operator s first semiannual training period and the 2 month period ending on the last day of the operator s birth month. While deployed to designated combat or imminent danger areas, the first commander (O 5 or above in the individual s chain of command) should consider reducing this evaluation requirement to once annually. At the end of the training year, the commander must certify that each operator has completed all S APART requirements. This action serves to recertify the operator in his or her designated duty position(s). An operator designated MQ at any time within this 2 month period must complete all S APART requirements. Operators receive credit for the operator s written examination and hands-on performance test during mission preparation if they complete the tests within the 2 month S APART period. Those operators participating in mission preparation programs are not subject to the S APART unless they were removed from MQ because of training deficiency. Operators removed from MQ status because of a training deficiency are subject to the S APART. D 6. Waivers to requirements a. Unit waivers to primary SUAS ATP requirements may be granted only by commanders of divisions or higher. AR August 2006/RAR 2 July 2010 NCRSASL

275 b. Commanders (O 6) and above and the SAAO may grant unit waivers and/or extensions to ATP requirements for units under their command affected by operational deployments. These commanders may grant unit extensions for up to 180 days from their self-established start training date after redeployment. c. Individual waivers to primary SUAS ATP requirements may be granted by the first commander (O 5 or above) in the individual s chain of command. D 7. Airspace usage a. The SUAS operation will be conducted in accordance with paragraph 2 9 of this regulation and applicable FAA orders published with regard to UAS and SUAS operations. If the use of a ground observer is required, the provisions of paragraph 4 27 of this regulation will apply. b. Where the appropriate qualifications listed above are met, the FAA agrees to provide access to the National Airspace System for DOD UAS outside restricted areas and warning areas as follows: (1) All categories of DOD UAS operations conducted wholly within Class D airspace that has as associated DODcontrolled, non-joint-use airfield provided (see note below) operations are not conducted over populated areas or within airspace covered in 14 CFR (b)(2). (2) The DOD UASs that weigh 20 pounds or less, under the following conditions: (a) Operations are conducted within Class G airspace, below 1,200 feet AGL (not applicable to airspace identified by 14 CFR (b)(2)) over military bases, reservations, or land protected by purchase, lease, or other restriction. (b) The UAS remains within clear visual range of the pilot or a certified observer in ready contact with the pilot to ensure separation from other aircraft. Note. The DOD will ensure that the UAS remains more than 5 miles from any civil use airport or heliport. The DOD components operating under this paragraph will notify the FAA of the proposed operation in advance and publish NOTAMs as required to alert nonparticipating aircraft of the operation. For nonrecurring operations, notification will be accomplished, and NOTAM published, no later than 24 hours in advance. For recurring operations (for example, training) standing blanket notifications and/or standing NOTAMS should not be used. D 8. Minimum crew requirements Unless the operator s manual specifically states otherwise, the minimum crew to operate a SUAS will be one TRADOC-approved school trained operator and an untrained assistant. D 9. Certification of operators and master trainers The MT will not be authorized to certify new operators at their home station. The SUAS operator and master trainer qualification courses will be conducted only at TRADOC-approved locations or under PM-conducted new equipment training. a. To become qualified as an MT, a UAC must successfully complete one of the following: (1) A DA-approved MT course. (2) An MT equivalency evaluation administered by an MT selected by USAACE&FR DES, in the SUAS in which MT duties are to be performed. Commanders will coordinate with DES (ATZQ ES), Fort Rucker, prior to submitting request for equivalency evaluation to DAMO AV. b. Upon completion of the TRADOC-approved master trainer qualification course or DES equivalency, O 5 commanders with organic SUAS assets have the authority to appoint MTs. Master trainers must be current, qualified, and mission qualified in the system in which they will be performing their duties. This policy applies to any UAS and/ or SUAS whether a fielded system, equipped system, or still in the testing portion of the acquisition process. Appendix E Management Control Evaluation Checklist E 1. Function The function covered by this checklist is the administration of the management control process. E 2. Purpose The purpose of this checklist is to assist assessable unit managers and management control administrators in evaluating the key management controls outlined below. It is not intended to cover all controls. E 3. Instructions Answers must be based on the actual testing of key management controls (document analysis, direct observation, sampling, simulation, and so on). Answers that indicate deficiencies must be explained and corrective action indicated 36 AR August 2006/RAR 2 July 2010 NCRSASL - 265

276 in supporting documentation. These key management controls must be evaluated at least once every 5 years. Certification that this evaluation has been conducted must be accomplished on DA Form 11 2 (Internal Control Evaluation Certification). E 4. Test questions a. HQDA only. (1) Are standardized aviation safety, standardization, and utilization regulations and procedures published by a DA proponent? (2) Is safety-of-flight information prepared and sent to the field in a timely manner? b. User. (1) Are airports, heliports, and landing areas approved for flight operations? (2) Are local flying rules in agreement with Federal, DOD, and DA policies? (3) Are applicable safety regulations and special-use airspace operation guidance followed? (4) Are violations of safety and special-use airspace guidance reported and investigated by appropriate personnel per Federal, DOD, and DA guidance? (5) Are Army UAS unmanned aircrafts used for official purposes prescribed in AR 95 23? (6) Are Aircrew Training Program carried out per applicable Army guidance to include flying hours and synthetic flight training? (7) Are personnel who do not meet proficiency requirements restricted from flight duty? (8) Is UAS life support equipment available and maintained in accordance with applicable guidance? (9) Has the airspace been approved for UAS operations? c. Reserve Component. Are additional flight training periods managed in accordance with applicable policies and regulations? E 5. Supersession This checklist replaces the checklist for administration of the management control process published in AR 95 23, dated 14 May E 6. Comments Help to make this a better tool for evaluation management controls. Submit comments to Headquarters, Department of the Army, (DAMO RQ), 400 Army Pentagon, Washington D.C AR August 2006 NCRSASL

277 Glossary Section I Abbreviations AC aircraft commander ACOM Army Command AD Airworthiness Directive AGL above ground level AMC U.S. Army Materiel Command AMCOM U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command AO aircraft operator APART annual proficiency and readiness test AR Army regulation ARMS Aviation Resource Management Survey ARNG Army National Guard ASA aviation safety action ASCC Army Service Component Command ATC air traffic control ATM aircrew training manual ATP Aircrew Training Program CAFRS Centralized Aviation Flight Records System CFR Code of Federal Regulations CG commanding general 38 AR August 2006 NCRSASL - 267

278 CVR cockpit voice recorder DA Department of the Army DA Pam Department of the Army pamphlet DARR Department of the Army Regional Representative DCS, G 3/5/7 Deputy Chief of Staff, G 3/5/7 DCS, G 4 Deputy Chief of Staff, G 4 DES Directorate of Evaluation and Standardization DOD Department of Defense DOTD Directorate of Training and Doctrine DRU Direct Reporting Unit DSC digital source collector EO external operator ETA estimated time of arrival FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAR Federal aviation regulation FDR flight data recorder FLIP flight information publication FM field manual FOIA Freedom of Information Act FR Fort Rucker AR August 2006 NCRSASL

279 FTG flight training guide GCS ground control station GPS Global Positioning System HQDA Headquarters, Department of the Army IATF individual aircrew training folder ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization IFR instrument flight rules IFRF individual flight records folder IKTP initial key personnel training IMC instrument meteorological conditions IO instructor operator MC mission coordinator MOPP mission-oriented protective posture MOS military occupational specialty MQ mission qualified MT master trainer MTDS mission, type, design, and series NCO noncommissioned officer NGB National Guard Bureau NOTAM Notice to Airman 40 AR August 2006 NCRSASL - 269

280 O 5 lieutenant colonel O 6 colonel PO payload operator POI program of instruction PM project manager RAW risk assessment worksheet RL readiness level S 3 operations officer SAAO state Army aviation officer SB supply bulletin SME subject matter expert SOF safety of flight SOP standing operating procedure SO standardization instructor operator SP standardization instructor pilot S PART semiannual proficiency and readiness test SUA special use airspace SUAS Small Unmanned Aircraft System TB technical bulletin TM technical manual AR August 2006 NCRSASL

281 TRADOC U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command UA unmanned aircraft UAC unmanned aircraft crewmember UAS Unmanned Aircraft System U.S. United States USAACE&FR U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence and Fort Rucker USAASA U.S. Army Aeronautical Services Agency USSOCOM U.S. Special Operations Command UT unit trainer VFR visual flight rules VMC visual meteorological condition Section II Terms Aeronautical information manual A manual that provides the aviation community with basic flight information and ATC procedures for use in the National Airspace System of the United States. It also contains items of interest to operators and aircrewmembers concerning health and medical facts, factors affecting flight safety, a operator and/or controller glossary of terms used in the Air Traffic Control System, and information on safety, accident, and hazard reporting. Air traffic Aircraft and/or air vehicles operating in the air or on an airport surface, exclusive of loading ramps and parking areas. Aircrew training manual (ATM) A publication that contains Army training requirements for Army flight crewmembers and programs for qualification, refresher, mission, and continuation training in support of the Aircrew Training Program (ATP), including unmanned aerial vehicle system crewmembers training programs. Aircrew Training Program (ATP) Army aviation aircrew standardized training and evaluation program. Army aircraft and/or unmanned aircraft Aircraft and/or unmanned aircraft under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army. Army aviation standardization The use of uniform tested procedures and techniques to attain a high level of readiness and professionalism in the operation and employment of Army aircraft and/or unmanned aircraft. This is achieved through standardized publications and training literature, a disciplined instructor operator force, tests, flight checks, and command supervision. Standardization includes aviator cockpit, performance, aircrew teamwork, tactics, maintenance, and safety. For UASs, 42 AR August 2006 NCRSASL - 271

282 standardization includes external operator and/or external air vehicle crewmember performance, air vehicle crewmember and/or air vehicle operator, and mission payload operator performance, aircrew teamwork, tactics, maintenance, and safety. Army safety action team Standing committee that meets on call to address HQDA-level Safety of Flight and Safety of Use issues, provide coordinated recommendations to the Office of the Chief of Staff, Army, and expedite corrective actions to maximize readiness, safety and training. See AR for specific objectives, membership, and procedures. Aviation safety action messages (ASAM) Electrically transmitted messages that convey maintenance, technical or general interest information where a low to medium risk safety condition has been determined per AR The ASAMs are of a lower priority than SOF messages. Catastrophic failure Any failure that leads to the loss of the UAS(s). Command and/or staff aviation officer A special staff aviator designated by the commander to provide advice or manage aviation assets, aviation standardization, and aviation safety. Controlled airspace A generic term that covers the different classification of airspace (Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D, and Class E airspace) and defined dimensions within which air traffic control service is provided to instrumented flight rules flights and to VFR flights in accordance with the airspace classification (see the Aeronautical Information Manual). Crewmember Includes all flight and ground crewmembers, and others who perform aircrew duties as listed in this regulation. Cross-country flight A flight extending beyond the local flying area or within the local flying area which is planned to terminate at a place other than the place of origin. External operator (EO) The UAS crewmember who, in the absence of full automatic takeoff and landing systems, visually controls the UAS flight path, generally during takeoff and/or landing. Flight crew station A station in an air vehicle that a flight crewmember occupies to perform his or her flight duty, for example, operator stations specified in operator s manuals. For UAS, a station associated with the in-flight operation of a UAS at which flight controls may be used to control air vehicle flight; for example, air vehicle operator, external operator, or mission payload operator stations specified in the operator s manual. Flight crewmember Any instructor pilot, flight examiner, pilot, copilot, flight engineer and/or mechanic, flight navigator, weapon systems operator, bombardier navigator, radar intercept operator, sensory system operator, boom operator, crew chief, loadmaster, remotely operated aircraft operator, UAS operator, defensive and/or offensive system operator, and other flight manual handbook identified crewmember when assigned to their respective crew positions to conduct a military flight or any flight under the contract. For UAS, a AO, EO, IO, MC, PO or SO assigned to duty during the in-flight operation of an aircraft. Flight surgeon A medical officer that is a graduate of an approved military course of aviation medicine. References to flight surgeons include aeromedical physician s assistant. Ground crewmember The status assigned to Soldiers who have duties directly related to the preparation, launch, recovery and/or maintenance of UAS and/or their mission payload systems but not the in-flight mission. Installation For Army Aviation Standardization Program purposes, continental United States Active Army posts, camps, or stations; AR August 2006 NCRSASL

283 ARNG states; Army Reserve commands; overseas corps, divisions, independent regiments, groups, and brigades. For other than standardization purposes includes U.S. Army Reserve facilities. Instructor operator (IO) A UAS crewmember who conducts training and evaluation of UACs and UAS unit trainers in designated UAS and promotes safety among aircrewmembers. Training and evaluation include air vehicle operation, qualification, unit employment, visual flight, and crew performance. Maintenance The inspection, overhaul, repair, preservation, and/or the replacement of parts, but excludes preventive maintenance. Maintenance and operations check Systems check made on the ground through engine runup and taxiing. Checks made using auxiliary power or testing equipment to simulate, insofar as possible, actual conditions under which the system is to operate. These checks are made to ensure that air vehicle systems or components disturbed during an inspection or maintenance have been repaired or adjusted satisfactorily. Mission coordinator (MC) The designated individual tasked with the overall responsibility for the operation and safety of the UAS mission. National Airspace System All of the airspace above the surface of the earth over the United States and its possessions. Night The time between the end of evening nautical twilight and the beginning of morning nautical twilight converted to local time. Operational flying Flying performed by qualified personnel primarily for mission support or training, while serving in assignments in which basic flying skills normally are kept current while performing assigned duties. All flying by qualified members of the Reserve Component not on extended active duty is operational flying. Remotely operated aircraft The FAA terminology for unmanned aircraft vehicle systems Restricted area Airspace designated in FAR 1 within which the flight of aircraft and/or air vehicles, while not prohibited, is subject to restriction(s). Safety of flight (SOF) messages Electrically transmitted messages pertaining to any defect or hazardous condition, actual or potential, that can cause personal injury, death, or damage to aircraft and/or air vehicles, components or repair parts where a medium to high risk safety condition has been determined per AR Special use airspace (SUA) Airspace designated by the FAA with specific vertical and lateral limits, established for the purpose of containing hazardous activities or activity that could be hazardous to nonparticipating aircraft and/or air vehicles. Limitation on nonparticipating aircraft and/or air vehicles may range from absolute exclusion to complete freedom of use within certain areas, depending upon activity being conducted. Standardization instructor operator A qualified instructor operator designated by the commander, in writing, to supervise unit standardization programs. Primarily trains and evaluates other SOs and IOs. Traffic pattern The traffic flow that is prescribed for aircraft and/or air vehicles landing at, taxiing on, or taking off from an airport or airfield. 44 AR August 2006 NCRSASL - 273

284 Training mission Missions flown for flight qualification, refresher, or proficiency and/or currency training; ATP requirements, and authorized training exercises. Unit trainer (UT) A UAS crewmember designated to instruct in areas of special training to assist in unit training programs and achieve established training standards. Unmanned aircraft crewmember (UAC) Flight and/or ground individuals who perform duties controlling the flight of an unmanned aerial vehicle or the operation of its mission equipment as well as preparation, launch, recovery and/or maintenance that is essential to the operation of the UAS. Unmanned aircraft operator (AO) The AO controls and/or monitors the actual flight of the UAS from within a GCS, launch and recovery site, portable GCS, or similar device. Unmanned Aircraft System Unmanned Aircraft System, includes platform, sensors, communication gear, launcher, landing system, ground control station. UAS control station A flight deck without external flight environment clues (no direct visual contact with the UAS) used for control of UAS. Section III Special Abbreviations and Terms This section contains no entries. AR August 2006 NCRSASL

285 UNCLASSIFIED PIN NCRSASL - 275

286 USAPD ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING SYSTEM OneCol FORMATTER WIN32 Version 264 PIN: DATE: TIME: 16:02:53 PAGES SET: 51 DATA FILE: C:\wincomp\r95-23.fil DOCUMENT: AR SECURITY: UNCLASSIFIED DOC STATUS: REVISION NCRSASL - 276

287 SECRETARY OF THE ARM Y WASHINGTON f 3 JAN 2012 MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION SUBJECT: Army Directive (Supplemental Policy for Operations of Unmanned Aircraft Systems in the National Airspace System) 1. The Army's unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) represent emerging technology that requires access to the National Airspace System. The Army intends to use UAS for warfighter training and directed mission support. To ensure that UAS operations are conducted safely and efficiently, and in accordance with Federal aviation regulations and other governing laws and procedures, the Deputy Chief of Staff (DCS), G-3/5/7 developed the enclosed supplemental policy. This policy applies to the Active Army, the Army National Guard/Army National Guard of the United States, and the United States Army Reserve, unless otherwise stated. 2. As UAS operations evolve and mature, the DCS G-3/5/7 shall ensure this policy is reviewed with Army stakeholders on a biannual basis and updated, as necessary. 3. This policy is effective immediately and supersedes the Interim Guidance for UAS Operations in the National Airspace System that the DCS G-3/5/7 issued on 24 March This policy will be incorporated in the next revisions of Army Regulation (Unmanned Aircraft System Flight Regulations), Army Regulation 95-2 (Airspace, Airfields/Heliports, Flight Activities, Air Traffic Control and Navigation Aids) and the Unified Facilities Criteria and Enclosure o~.. 1M ~~ \~ ohn M. MtHLbh NCRSASL - 277

288 SUBJECT: Army Directive (Supplemental Policy for Operations of Unmanned Aircraft Systems in the National Airspace System) Principal Officials of Headquarters, Department of the Army Commander U.S. Army Forces Command U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command U.S. Army Materiel Command U.S. Army Europe U.S. Army Central U.S. Army North U.S. Army South U.S. Army Pacific U.S. Army Africa U.S. Army Special Operations Command Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Strategic Command Eighth U.S. Army U.S. Army Network Enterprise Technology Command/9 th Signal Command U.S. Army Medical Command U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Military District of Washington U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command U.S. Army Installation Management Command Superintendent, United States Military Acad emy Director, U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center CF: Commander, U.S. Army Accessions Command Executive Director, Army National Cemeteries Program Commander, U.S. Army Cyber Command Director, Office of Business Transformation Commander, U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command Commander, U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence Program Executive Officer, Aviation Commander, U.S. Army Combat Readiness Center 2 NCRSASL - 278

289 SUPPLEMENTAL POLICY FOR OPERATIONS OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS IN THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM JANUARY 2012 Enclosure NCRSASL - 279

290 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 Purpose Request for Federal Aviation Administration Certificate of Authorization Operation of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems in Class G Airspace Without a Certificate of Authorization Arrival and Departure Criteria Surface and Clearance Criteria for Landings and Takeoffs Air Traffic Control Procedures Observers (When Required by Certificate of Authorization) Weather Requirements Facility Requirements Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operator and Observer Qualifications Operational Restrictions Accident and Incident Reporting... 5 Appendix A Memorandum of Agreement for Unmanned Aircraft Systems, 24 Sep Appendix B Air Traffic Control Procedures for DoD Non-Joint-Use Airfields With Associated Class D Airspace, 23 Jan Appendix C Sample Memorandum for Class G Airspace Appendix D DA Form 2397-U (Unmanned Aircraft System Accident Report (UASAR)) Enclosure to Army Directive i NCRSASL - 280

291 1. Purpose a. This enclosure establishes Armywide supplemental policy for the operations of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) not currently covered in Army regulations (ARs), field manuals, Unified Facilities Criteria, and other regulatory guidance. This supplemental policy is derived in part from recent Department of Defense (DoD) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) agreements necessary for expanded UAS access to the National Airspace System. b. This supplemental policy supersedes all versions of the interim guidance from the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3/5/7 for UAS in the National Airspace System. The Commander, U.S. Army Aeronautical Services Agency will continue working with regulatory proponents and Army stakeholders to incorporate elements of this policy into existing regulations as UAS guidance matures during normal cycle updates. 2. Request for Federal Aviation Administration Certificate of Authorization a. UAS operations outside of restricted or warning areas require an FAA-approved certificate of authorization, except for some operations in Class G airspace. (See paragraph 3, Operations of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems in Class G Airspace Without a Certificate of Authorization, on page 2.) b. To submit a request for a certificate of authorization: (1) Complete the checklist application for the certificate of authorization via the FAA Obstruction Evaluation / Airport Airspace Analysis (OE/AAA) Web site ( Contact the FAA Service Area Department of the Army Representative (DAR) for Web site access and questions. (Refer to AR 95-2 (Airspace, Airfields/Heliports, Flight Activities, Air Traffic Control, and Navigational Aids), table 3-1, for DAR contact information.) (2) Requests must be submitted to the DAR by the O-6/civilian equivalent or higher in the unit s chain of command a minimum of 90 days before the requested start of UAS operations. Earlier submission is recommended to streamline processing time for the certificate of authorization. c. Certificates of authorization normally apply to one type and concept of UAS operations. The DoD/FAA UAS memorandum of agreement (MOA) dated 24 September 2007 (appendix A) allows leadership of an air traffic control (ATC) facility at a non-joint-use airfield to apply for a certificate of authorization to cover all UAS operations in the associated Class D airspace. These requests for a certificate of authorization will be referred to as the UAS MOA Class D certificate of authorization. ATC leadership will develop local procedures to comply with existing local traffic patterns, arrival and departure procedures, noise abatement procedures, and airfield operating rules. Local procedures are supplementary, but cannot waive or replace the procedures for DoD non-joint-use airfields with associated Class D airspace at Enclosure to Army Directive NCRSASL - 281

292 appendix B, beginning on page 10. Local procedures must be approved by the ATC facility chief before implementation and will be published and maintained in the ATC facilities. Contact the DAR to determine if you may initiate a UAS MOA Class D certificate of authorization for your facility. Complete the certificate of authorization checklist and provide it to the DAR for submission to the FAA in accordance with paragraph 2b. The DAR will inform the requesting organization that its certificate of authorization is approved or disapproved. Once the certificate of authorization is approved, provide any changes to local procedures, unmanned aircraft systems, and airworthiness release to the DAR. The DAR will notify Headquarters, Army Aeronautical Services Agency (Airspace Branch) of any additional UAS type added to the approved MOA Class D certificate of authorization. 3. Operation of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems in Class G Airspace Without a Certificate of Authorization a. The DoD/FAA UAS MOA authorizes a Class G airspace notification in lieu of a certificate of authorization for UAS weighing 20 pounds or less operating below 1,200 feet above ground level in Class G airspace over military bases, reservations, or land protected by purchase, lease, or other restrictions. This is not applicable to airspace identified in 14 CFR (Mode C veil within 30 miles of major airports depicted on Visual Flight Rules sectional charts by a solid magenta line). The UAS must remain more than 5 nautical miles from any civil use (public or private) airport or heliport and within clear visual range of the operator or certified observer in contact with the operator. b. The UAS unit representative will contact the DAR to determine if this notification applies to proposed small UAS operation. Upon verification, the first O-6/civilian equivalent in the chain of command submits the Class G airspace memorandum, along with the current airworthiness release, to the DAR before conducting planned operations. (A sample memorandum for Class G airspace is in appendix C, beginning on page 17.) The DAR will officially notify the FAA and inform the requesting unit when notification procedures are complete. c. The UAS commander will ensure that a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) is issued 24 hours in advance to alert nonparticipating aircraft of the operation. The UAS commander will verify that a NOTAM was issued before beginning operations. Contact your air traffic and airspace officer if you require assistance submitting a NOTAM. 4. Arrival and Departure Criteria. The following arrival and departure criteria apply to UAS operating at Army facilities. UAS operations at joint military-civilian use airfields will also comply with provisions of FAA UAS certificates of authorization and joint use letters of agreement (LOAs) developed with the civil authority operating at the airport. Enclosure to Army Directive NCRSASL - 282

293 a. Minimum approach angle: 3. b. Minimum departure climb rate: 200 per nautical mile. c. Approach speed: Treat UAS as CAT A aircraft. 5. Surface and Clearance Criteria for Landings and Takeoffs a. Landing and takeoff surfaces used only by UAS shall comply with criteria established in Engineer Technical Letter (Aviation Complex Planning and Design Criteria for Army Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)). Surfaces used by manned aircraft shall comply with criteria established in Unified Facilities Criteria and b. The first O-6/civilian equivalent in the UAS unit commander s command chain may waive surface length criteria for landings and takeoffs after completing a risk assessment and when lesser criteria is specified in the manufacturer s or appropriate military operations manual. c. Local commanders are not authorized to waive lateral clearance or clear zone criteria. Requests for waivers shall be processed in accordance with Unified Facilities Criteria through command channels to Headquarters, Army Aeronautical Services Agency. 6. Air Traffic Control Procedures a. A comprehensive LOA is required and coordination may include unit commander, airfield commander/manager, and ATC facility chief. A review of the proposed LOA by the appropriate DAR is required before execution. Prepare and maintain LOAs in accordance with AR 95-2; Training Circular (Air Traffic Control Facility Operations, Training, Maintenance, and Standardization); and AR (Preparing and Managing Correspondence). LOAs do not waive or modify restrictions listed in the FAA certificates of authorization. b. UAS operations require a precoordinated missed approach procedure established in the LOA and in accordance with an approved certificate of authorization. The LOA will cover lost link and/or loss of visual contact procedures. c. Air Traffic Control Separation and Phraseology (1) U.S. Army radar approach control facilities will apply standard separation criteria to UAS operations outside of FAA-established active restricted areas. (2) The agency using the restricted area (as identified in FAA Order ) will establish separation criteria to ensure safe operations within its restricted areas. Enclosure to Army Directive NCRSASL - 283

294 (3) U.S. Army ATC facilities will use standard phraseology in accordance with FAA Order (taxi to, cleared for takeoff, cleared to land, etc.) for communications between ATC and UAS operators. Nonstandard phraseology is not authorized. 7. Observers (When Required by Certificate of Authorization) a. Ground observer duties are in accordance with AR (Unmanned Aircraft System Flight Regulations), chapter 4. b. Chase aircraft pilots are not authorized to perform observer or UAS operator duties while flying the chase aircraft. Observers onboard the chase aircraft will not perform UAS operator duties. The chase aircraft should operate within 1 nautical mile laterally, or according to the certificate of authorization, and no more than 3,000 feet vertically from the UAS. Observers onboard a chase aircraft must keep visual contact with the UAS at all times. c. Radar observers are rated ATC personnel dedicated to monitoring unmanned aircraft. Radar observers may not simultaneously perform other ATC services. As a minimum, primary radar returns must be enabled. Secondary radar returns may be used in addition to primary radar, but not as a sole source of radar observing. 8. Weather Requirements. Weather requirements will be in accordance with AR 95-23, chapter Facility Requirements a. The Army Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3/5/7 (DAMO-AV) is the proponent for Army requirements for manned and unmanned aircraft hangars. The G-3/5/7 is supported by the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management with the aircraft maintenance hangar complex facilities design team. b. Facility standard design can be obtained for the Grey Eagle, Warrior Alpha, and Hunter UAS at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District (Center of Standardization) (POC: Kathy Prochnow / phone (251) ). 10. Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operator and Observer Qualifications. Unit commanders will establish a standing operating procedure detailing operator and observer training and certification requirements. Training must include the rules and responsibilities in 14 CFR (Operating Near other Aircraft) and 14 CFR (Right-of-Way Rules). a. Refer to AR for guidance. b. UAS observers must have vision correctible to 20/20 (both eyes). Enclosure to Army Directive NCRSASL - 284

295 c. Medical requirements for UAS operators are addressed in ALARACT 293/2010 Notification of Changes to the Aeromedical Physical Standards of Unmanned Aviation Systems. 11. Operational Restrictions a. Manned and unmanned traffic pattern operations will be conducted in accordance with AR 95-2, chapter 5. Manned and unmanned aircraft will not simultaneously operate in a traffic pattern. This includes traffic patterns that share a runway (right and left traffic patterns to same runway, including opposite direction operations). Manned and unmanned aircraft will not simultaneously operate to parallel/overlapping landing surfaces or those that have overlapping patterns. The only exceptions to these criteria are the allowance for the following, when authorized by an LOA: manned aircraft established on final (making a straight-in approach) to follow an unmanned aircraft already established on final, and manned aircraft established on final (making a straight-in approach) to follow an unmanned aircraft departing straight out from the runway. Requirements in certificates of authorization, LOAs, or other local operating procedures and agreements may be more restrictive, but may not allow for less restrictive operations. b. Armed UAS flights outside restricted and warning areas are prohibited unless specifically authorized in the FAA certificate of authorization. 12. Accident and Incident Reporting. In addition to requirements in AR 95-23, AR (The Army Safety Program) and DA Pamphlet (Army Accident Investigations and Reporting) provide the initial report of all UAS accidents or incidents to the appropriate DAR within 24 hours. a. UAS accident reporting applies to all UAS (including small UAS). b. Small UAS accident reporting is addressed in AR c. DA Form 2397-U (Unmanned Aircraft System Accident Report) is required for all UAS aviation accidents, regardless of the class. Investigation and submission of Form 2397-U will be in accordance with AR A copy of Form 2397-U is at Appendix D, beginning on page 19. Enclosure to Army Directive NCRSASL - 285

296 APPENDIX A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS, 24 SEP 07 Memorandum of Agreement Concerning the Operation of Department of Defense Unmanned Aircraft Systems in the National Airspace System Introduction. On September 28, 2006, the Deputy Secretary of Defense directed the Executive Director, Department of Defense (DoD) Policy Board on Federal Aviation. to pursue an agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to allow ready access to the National Airspace System (NAS) for DoD Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) domestic operations and training. This Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the DoD and the FAA sets forth provisions that will allow, in accordance with applicable law, increased access for DoD UAS into the elements of the NAS outside of DoD-managed Restricted Areas or Warning Areas. To ensure that DoD UAS operations are conducted safely, efficiently, and in accordance with U.S. law, and to ensure DoD UAS assets have NAS access for domestic operations, including the War on Terror (WOT), this agreement assigns the DoD and the FAA specific tasks and responsibilities. This guidance applies to all DoD UAS, whether operated by Active, Reserve, National Guard, or other personnel. It is the DoD's goal that appropriately equipped UAS will have ready access to the NAS for the conduct of domestic operations, exercises, training, and testing. It is the FAA's goal that DoD UAS operations are conducted safely and expeditiously, present no threat to the general public, and do no harm to other users of the NAS. To reach these goals, the DoD and FAA must aggressively collaborate toward an incremental approach in overcoming the technical; regulatory and safety hurdles to reaching these common goals. Both departments jointly agree to the following provisions as the initial steps in their pursuit of ready access to the NAS for DoD UAS operations. Scope. The policies, procedures and operations prescribed in this MOA apply to the opetation of DoD UAS within the NAS. This MOA specifically excludes commercial UAS operation for non-dod applications and other Government Agencies that operate Public Use UAS. Authority. Section 106 of Title 49, United States Code provides the authority of the Federal Aviation Administration to set aviation safety standards and regulate aviation operations in the NAS. Title 10 United States Code provides the authority for the Secretary of Defense to set military aviation standards and direct military aviation operations. Enclosure to Army Directive NCRSASL - 286

297 2 UAS Airworthiness Certification. Except where specifically exempted by the FAA, DoD VAS operated outside of Restricted Areas and Warning Areas shall be certified by one of the military departments as airworthy to operate at the appropriate level in accordance with applicable DoD and Military Department standards. UAS Pilot/Operator 1 /Crewmember Qualification. Pilots/operators of DoD VAS shall be qualified by the appropriate Military Department activities to fly in the class of airspace in which operations are to be conducted. DoD VAS pilots/operators in qualification training shall be supervised by a qualified UAS pilot/operator until achieving the appropriate qualification level. DoD VAS ground observers will possess the appropriate medical qualification to perform their duties. Enhanced DoD UAS Access to the NAS. Where the appropriate qualifications listed above are met, the FAA agrees to provide access to the NAS for DoD UAS outside Restricted Areas and Warning Areas as follows: All categories of DoD VAS operations conducted wholly within Class D airspace that has an associated DoD-controlled, non-joint-use airfield, provided 2 : o o Operations are not conducted over populated areas or within airspace covered in Section (b)(2) oftitle14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR (b)(2)). DoD shall develop uniform air traffic control procedures to be applied at all locations. These procedures will be developed in coordination with the FAA prior to implementation and a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization issued to the appropriate DoD Air Traffic facility. DoD UAS that weigh 20 pounds or less, under the following conditions: Operations are conducted within Class G airspace, below 1200' AGL (not applicable to airspace identified by 14 CFR (b)(2)) over military bases, reservations or land protected by purchase, lease or other restriction. o The VAS remains within clear visual range of the pilot, or a certified observer in ready contact with the pilot, to ensure separation from other aircraft. 1 Note: The term "operator" is a DoD-specific term to describe individuals with the appropriate training and Military Department certification for the type of VAS being operated, and as such, is responsible for the UAS operations & safety. It is used to differentiate from DoD rated pilots of manned weapons systems. 2 The DoD, as a service provider for this airspace, does not have the authority to issue waivers to 14 CFR Part 91. Enclosure to Army Directive NCRSASL - 287

298 o The DoD will ensure the UAS remains more than 5 miles from any civil use airport or heliport DoD components operating under this paragraph will notify the FAA of the proposed operation in advance, and publish Notices to Airmen (NOTAMS) as required to alert non-participating aircraft of the operation. For non-recurring operations, notification will be accomplished, and Notices to Airmen (NOT AMS) published, no later than 24 hours in advance. For recurring operations (e.g. training) standing "blanket" notifications/standing NOT AMs should be used. DoD/FAA Partnering on UAS Initiatives. To the maximum extent practicable, the DoD and the FAA will partner on efforts to further UAS research, development, standards, testing and certification initiatives as follows: NAS Integration. The DoD and FAA will coordinate the development of near, mid and long-term UAS standards, procedures, and technical solutions. UAS Research and Development (R&D). The DoD and the FAA agree to share methodologies, information and results of research and development efforts conducted by their respective organizations. Both organizations agree to, wherever practicable, partner in UAS R&D efforts that show promise for enhancing the safety of DoD UAS operations in the NAS. UAS Testing and Certification. The DoD agrees to invite FAA participation in DoDconducted development and testing of UAS components intended to enhance the safety of UAS operations, including detect-and-avoid systems. The FAA agrees to participate in DoD development and testing of said components, and provide input to developing acceptable standards of performance that will allow enhanced DoD UAS NAS access. UAS Safety Data. The DoD, through the Military Department safety organizations, will collect and share data on UAS operations to support FAA UAS safety studies and analyses. The FAA will provide the requested data elements and reporting format for this data. The FAA agrees to release to the DoD all results and findings of studies and analyses conducted using DoD UAS data, and to share UAS safety information gleaned from public and private sources with the DoD. Waiver Process. In those cases where meeting all of the certification provisions of this agreement is not possible, or is cost or mission prohibitive, the FAA will review the specific conditions of DoD requests for U AS operations outside of Restricted, Warning, or other areas outside the scope of this document to determine if a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (CoA) may be issued. The FAA will strive to process properly-completed DoD COA applications within 60 days of receipt. In the case of wgent and compelling need (such as "non-training" national security Enclosure to Army Directive NCRSASL - 288

299 missions or "active" natural disaster support), the DoD will notify the FAA of the need and reason for priority action, and the FAA will process DoD COA requests as quickly as possible, but not later than 24 hours from receipt of complete mission requirements. Implementation Plan. The Chairman, DoD Policy Board on Federal Aviation, and the Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, are charged with formulating policy for their respective organizations to ensure compliance with the provisions of this agreement. The FAA's office of primary responsibility is the Urunanned Aircraft Program Office. This MOA will be reviewed annually or as needed by request of either party and is effective upon the last signature of the Parties. Wk Date For the Federal Aviation Administration Enclosure to Army Directive NCRSASL - 289

300 APPENDIX B AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL PROCEDURES FOR DOD NON-JOINT- USE AIRFIELDS WITH ASSOCIATED CLASS D AIRSPACE, 23 JAN 09 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 1480 DEFENSE PENTAGON WASHINGTON DC DOD POLICY BOARD ON FEDERAL AVIATION JAN MEMORANDUM FOR ASD(NII) (MR GRIMES) OUSD(P) (MR VERGA) OUSD(AT&L) (Iv1R KISTLER) OSD/DGC A&L (MR LARSEN) JCS/J-5 (BGEN DISALVO) DCS/G-3/5/7 (LT GEN THURMA..l\I) N88 (R...ADM MYERS) DCS/A3/5 (LT GEN DARNELL) USMC/AVIATION (LT GEN TRAUTMAI'n SUBJECT: ATC Procedures for Department of Defense (DOD) Non-Joint-Use l~ ~irfields with Associated Class D Airspace I have enclosed revised ATC Procedures for DOD Non-Joint-Use Airfieids with Associated Class D Airspace to operate DOD Unmanned Aircraft Systems for Service use effective on 2i January, Tne procedures were developed pursuant to DEPSECDEF memorandum, Subject: Memorandum of Agreement for Operation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems in the National Airspace System dated 24 September They meet the requirements of the "DOD-FAA l\10;"~ Concerning the Operation ofdod UAS in the NAS" entered into by the FAA Administrator and the Deputy Secretary of Defense effective 24 September The procedures when employed properly will simplify and expedite UAS COA approvals at DOD airfields. These procedures were developed by Se1vice operatior..s and air traffic control subject matter experts and have been coordinated with the FAA.. The procedures replace DOD Operations and A TG Procedures for Non-Joint-Use Airfields with Associated Class D Airspace released M ay They should be considered an integral part of DOD airfield operations and attached to all applicable UAS COA requests. Please feel free to contact me at (703) , or COL Robert Hess, who chaired the DOD UAS ATC procedures working group, at (703) , with any questions. 1 Attachment DOD Procedures SU>cerely, (I j} 9 ~oo~r GERALD F. PEASE, Jr., SES Executive Director Enclosure to Army Directive NCRSASL - 290

301 ATC Procedures for DOD Non..Joint~Use Airfields with Associated Class D Airspace 1. Purpose. To meet requirements for uniform air traffic control procedures as specified in the DOD/FAA Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) Concerning the Operation of Department of Defense Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS) dated 24 September Scope. a. The procedures in this document outiine standards for ATC procedures at DOD non-joint-use airfields with associated Class D airspace conducting UAS operations. b. This document cannot be amended without prior coordination with the Service's representative to the DOD Policy Board on Federal Aviation, who will in tum coordinate proposais within DOD and with the FAA. NOTE: For list of DOD Military-Civilian Joint-Use Airfields see Appendix 1 3. Provisions. All personnel subject to the requirements of this document shaii compiy with the foiiowing provisions: a. Applicable Federal, State, and localla-..-s, Ser1ice Regulations, applicable Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs}, FAA Orders and the DOD/FAA Memorandum of Agreement Concerning the Operation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems in the Nationai Airspace System (DODiFAA MOA). b. Operation of UAS in Class D airspace at non-joint-use airfields is limited to DOD UAS operations and contract operations conducted solely under the direction of Department of Defense or one of its entities. c. Prior to commencing and at the conclusion of operations, DOD ATC shall advise ATC facilities providing approach control serv'ice to "the applicable airfield that Unmanned Aircraft (UA) operations are being conducted. Local coordination will be effected with impacted ATC facilities to include normal, emergency and contingency operations. 4. Definitions. a. NORDO aircraft: Any aircraft operating within the Class D airspace without two way radio communication with the ATC facility per 14 CFR Part 91. b. UA Zones: Marshalling areas, defined by geographic, visual or GPS reference, used by UA and ATC as departure/arrival points to/from airfield, as depicted in the Certificate of Authorization (COA}. UA Zones are also used for lost link and emergency orbit points for UA. 8 Jan 09 1 set, (703) Enclosure to Army Directive NCRSASL - 291

302 c. Lost!ink: UAS pilot/operator has lost the ability to provide real-time control of the UAS. Loss may be permanent or temporary. 5. Procedures. The following procedures wiii be applied at all non-joint-use DODcontrolled airfields with approved COA. a. Generat Procedures. (1) if equipped, UAs shall be operated at ali times with full lighting and transponders. (2) Procedures for deconfliction of UA and transient aircraft traffic wi!! be specified in the COA. Possible'methods of use: altitude restrictions for UA, visual holding points with specific lateral and vertical limits, use of ground observers. (3) The UA mission commander shall advise ATC of initiation and completion of flight operations. (4) Radio check between UA pilot/operator and ATC will be conducted prior to operations. (5) All communications betvveen ATC and UAS pilot/operator will be accomplished on designated primary and/or alternate ATC frequencies. Secondaryibackup communications andior telephone connectivity will be precoordinated. (6) A!! UAS operations will be conducted under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) in accordance with applicable Service Regulations and FARs. Increased ceiling and visibility requirements can be applied. b. ATC Procedures. (1) Description of aircraft types. Describe UAS to other aircraft by stating "unmanned aircraft." (2) A TIS Procedures. Make a ne'vv recording when UAS operations are in effect or have terminated for the day. (3) Sequencing and Spacing Application. UAS pilots cannot be instructed to follow another aircraft. (4) Simultaneous Same Direction, all UAS will be treated as "other" aircraft. (5) Same Runway Separation, all UAS will be treated as Category Ill aircraft. (6) Use of Visual Separation bet\ Jeen UAS and manned aircraft or UAS and UAS is not authorized. 8 Jan 09 2 set, (703) Enclosure to Army Directive NCRSASL - 292

303 (7) SVFR is not authorized with UAS. (8) Preventive ControL May oniy be appiied in accordance with FAAO JO (9) Transient Aircraft Procedures. ATC w!!! keep the UA pilot/operator apprised of any known transient aircraft operations that may impact operations. UA piiotioperator wiii take aii necessarv actions to maintain iaterai and verticai separation. ATC shouid provide UA pilot/ope;ator recommended altitudes or direct to pr9determined points (UA Zones) to ensure d~confliction. (10) For the purpose of applying wake turbulence rules see FAAO jq 7i PCG A-6 and Appendix 2, (iist of DOD UAS). in addition to the requirements of FAAO , ATC will apply the following procedures: (a)!ssue cautionary 'Nake turbulence advisories, and the position, altitude and direction of flight to the pilot/operator of UAS landing behind all manned aircraft regardiess of weight ciass. (b) \"Jake turbulence rules cannot be vvaived by the UAS pilot'operator. c. NORDO Aircraft Procedures. (1) ATC will notify UA pilot/operators of any known NORDO aircraft. (2) A TC wi!! broadcast on emergency frequencies when an NORDO aircraft is present to expeditiously establish two-way radio communications with NORDO aircraft. (3) UAS pilot/operator, assisted by ATC, will determine best method to separate UAS and f'~ordo aircraft Examples of separation methods: (a) UA may proceed to a UA Zone to hold (b) Cease operations and land if it will not aggravate the situation (c) Altitude deconfliction NOTE: All aircraft who do not establish two-way radio communication as per CFR prior to entering Class D airspace will be reported to the FAA. d. Emergency Procedures. (1) ATC will apply the procedures listed in Chapter 10, Section 1 of FAAO JO Minimum required information for in-flight emergencies: (a) Aircraft identification and type 8 Jan 09 3 set, (703} Enclosure to Army Directive NCRSASL - 293

304 (b) Nature of the emergency (lost link, equipment failure) (c) Intentions of the UA pilot/operator (d) Aircraft altitude I position (e) Fuel remaining in time (2) The safety of manned aircraft will take precedence over unmanned aircraft in an emergency situation. (3) if primary radio communications between UA pilot/operator and ATC are lost, UA pilot/operator or ATC will be notified immediately via designated aitemate communications method. Failure to establish or maintain radio communication between UA pilot/operator and ATC will require termination of UA operations. (4) if iost link occurs, UAS piiot/operator will immediately notifyatc with the following information: (a) Time of lost link (b) Last known position (c) Altitude (d) Direction of flight (e) Confirm execution of lost link procedures (f ) Confirm pilot/observer have visual contact 1, ; ith UA NOTE: UA lost iink is an emergency, but may not require crash-rescue services (5) In the event of lost link, lost communication between UAS pilot/operator and ATC or lost communication betvteen UAS pilot/operator and obser.:er, A TC will do the following: (a) Cease aircraft launches until status of affected UAS is determined (b) Rec.over other UA as appropriate (c) Issue advisories and ATC instructions as appropriate to insure the safe operation of all aircraft 8 Jan 09 4 set, (703) 806-4~63 Enclosure to Army Directive NCRSASL - 294

305 APPENDIX 1 DOD Military-Civilian Joint Use Airfields Army Blackstone AAF, Fort Pickett, VA Guemsey AAF, Camp Guernsey, VVY Dillingham AAF, Waialua, HI Forney AAF, Fort Leonard Wood, MO Robert Gray AAF, Fort Hood, TX Grayling AAF, Camp Grayling, Ml Libbv AAF, Fort Huachuca, AZ Sherman AAF, Fort Leavenworth, KS McCoy AAF, Fort McCoy, WI Wright AAF, Fort Ste\vart, GA Air Force Air Force Plant 42, Palmdale, CA Charleston At-ts, Charleston, SC Dover AFB, DE Eglin AFB, Valparaiso, FL Grissom ARB, Kokomo, IN Kelly AFB, San Antonio, TX March ARB, Riverside, CA Scott AFB, Belleville, IL Sheppard AFB, Wichita Falls, TX Westover ARB, Springfield, ivia NavY None Marines MCAS YumaAZ 8 Jan 09 5 set, (703) Enclosure to Army Directive NCRSASL - 295

306 APPENDIX2 DOD UAS Types and Weight I Types Weight 1 MQ -1 P re d alof ~ L 1..;JU IU MQ-1C Sky \.'Varrior 3,2001b RQ-2 Pioneer 4521b RQ-4 Global Hawk 26,750-32,250 lb RQ-5A/MQ-5B Hunter lb I RQ -7 Shadow 375ib RQ -11 R aven 410 I RQ-14 Dragon Eye 6 lb RQ-16A MAV 151b la - irn. C:,..., &;() I l'v'q 8 Fuo vvvu 3,....,v.b MQ-9 Reaper 10,500 lb 8 Jan 09 6 set, (703) Enclosure to Army Directive NCRSASL - 296

307 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ORGANIZATIONAL NAME/TITLE STREET ADDRESS CITY, STATE, AND ZIP +4 CODE APPENDIX C SAMPLE MEMORANDUM FOR CLASS G AIRSPACE MEMORANDUM FOR Department of the Army Representative (DAR), Federal Aviation Administration Eastern Service Area (ASO 920), P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, GA SUBJECT: Notification of UAS Operations (20 Pounds or Less) in Class G Airspace 1. This memorandum constitutes notification of intent to operate DoD unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) that weigh 20 pounds or less flown below 1,200 feet above ground level within Class G airspace as specified in the memorandum of agreement for operation of UAS in the National Airspace System. The following required information is provided: a. Unit or organization name. b. Types of UAS (list each type if more than one UAS). c. Total weight of each UAS with all additional payloads. d. Geographical area of operations (attachment: map and coordinates depicting UAS operations area, launch and recovery sites, and lost link orbit area/point). e. Start and end date (not to exceed 1 year). f. Times of operations (examples: Daily, 1100 hours to 2200 hours (use Zulu times); Intermittent from sunrise to sunset; 2-3 flights a week, intermittent 24 hours a day). g. Altitude 2. Operations are conducted over military bases or land protected by purchase, lease, or other restriction. No airspace as described in 14 CFR (b)(2) is involved. 3. The Aviation Engineering Directorate issued an airworthiness certificate for this UAS. All operators are qualified to operate UAS in accordance with AR All operators will ensure that the UAS remains within clear visual range of the operator, or a certified observer in ready contact with the operator, to ensure separation from other aircraft. Enclosure to Army Directive NCRSASL - 297

308 OFFICE SYMBOL SUBJECT: Notification of UAS Operations (20 Pounds or Less) in Class G Airspace 5. All operators will ensure that the UAS remains more than 5 miles from any civil use (public or private) airport or heliport. 6. A Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) will be published to alert nonparticipating aircraft of UAS operations. For nonrecurring operations, NOTAMs will be published no later than 24 hours in advance. For recurring operations (e.g., training), a standing blanket NOTAM will be issued. 7. In accordance with AR 95-23, chapter 2, unmanned aircraft anticollision lights will be on when UAS engines are operating, except when there may be other hazards to safety. Position lights will be on between official sunset and sunrise, unless a waiver has been obtained from HQDA (DAMO-AV) in accordance with AR A copy of the waiver is enclosed. 8. All operators and observers will be medically qualified in accordance with Interim Guidance for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Operations in the National Airspace System (NAS) and ALARACT 293/2010 (Notification of Change to the Aeromedical Physical Standards of Unmanned Aerial System Operators (UASO). 9. I understand all accidents and incidents must be reported promptly to the DAR FAA Eastern Service Area. 10. My point of contact is XXX, Office Symbol, DSN XXX-XXX, commercial (XXX) XXX- XXXX, or address: Encl SIGNATURE BLOCK Enclosure to Army Directive NCRSASL - 298

309 APPENDIX D DA FORM 2397-U UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM ACCIDENT REPORT (UASAR)) Enclosure to Army Directive NCRSASL - 299

310 Enclosure to Army Directive NCRSASL - 300

311 Enclosure to Army Directive NCRSASL - 301

312 BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION APRIL 2012 Intelligence OVERSIGHT OF INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY ACCESSIBILITY: Publications and forms are available for downloading or ordering on the e- Publishing website at RELEASABILITY: There are no releasability restrictions on this publication. OPR: AF/A2RP Supersedes: AFI , 16 April 2007 Certified by: AF/A2Z (Mr. Joseph D. Yount) Pages: 30 This publication implements Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 14-1, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Planning, Resources, and Operations and is consistent with Executive Order (EO) (part 2), United States Intelligence Activities; Department of Defense (DoD) Regulation R, Procedures Governing the Activities of DoD Intelligence Components That Affect United States Persons; DoD Directive, and (DoDD) , DoD Intelligence Activities. This publication states the requirements for United States Air Force intelligence oversight activities. In this publication, the term intelligence refers to intelligence and counterintelligence units, activities, etc. It describes mandatory intelligence oversight-associated training requirements for Air Force components that conduct intelligence activities. It also details how to identify, investigate, and report in the event of possible violations. This publication does not apply to criminal investigative activities. For purposes of this publication, the National Guard Bureau is a MAJCOM. This instruction applies to all Air Force (USAF), Air Force Reserve (USAFR) and Air National Guard (ANG) [in Title 10 or Title 32 (U.S.C.) status when assigned or attached to intelligence units or staffs]; and civilian personnel including, but not limited to, civil service, contract and Host Nation employees engaged in or performing intelligence-related activities as provided for in paragraph 2. Ensure that all records created as a result of processes prescribed in this publication are maintained in accordance with AFMAN , Management of Records, and disposed of in accordance with the Air Force Records Disposition Schedule (RDS) located at Send recommended changes using the AF Form 847, Recommendation for Change of Publication to AF/A2 Policy workflow via NIPR or SIPRnet. This publication may be supplemented at any level, but all direct Supplements must be routed through the OPR prior to certification and approval to AF/A2 Policy workflow via NIPR or SIPRnet. NCRSASL - 302

313 2 AFI April 2012 SUMMARY OF CHANGES This publication is substantially revised and must be completely reviewed. It adds reporting requirements, if required, of verified Questionable Intelligence Activities and/or Significant or Highly Sensitive Matters to the United States Attorney General. This revision updates standards for initial, annual, and pre-deployment training, IO program inspection guidance as well as unit self-inspection criteria. It clarifies undisclosed participation of personnel assigned to the AF ISR Agency for foreign intelligence purposes as well as senior leader training requirements. It updates annual and quarterly IO reporting procedures. It adds AF/JA as a voting member of the IO Panel, and also adds AF/JA to the list of offices required to coordinate on quarterly and annual IO reports. It creates Proper Use Memorandum (PUM) guidance for airborne platforms. References and definitions have been substantially updated. 1. Purpose Conduct of Intelligence Activities Scope Responsibilities Training Program Inspection Guidance Identifying, Investigating and Reporting Questional Activities The IO Panel consists of SAF/IG (chair), SAF/GC, AF/A2 and AF/JA Domestic Imagery Force Protection Procedural Guidance Reporting of Incidentally Acquired Threat Information The Internet NCRSASL - 303

314 AFI April Domestic Imagery. Air Force components may, at times, require newly collected or archived domestic imagery to perform certain missions. Domestic imagery is defined as any imagery collected by satellite (national or commercial) and airborne platforms that cover the land areas of the 50 United States, the District of Columbia, and the territories and possessions of the US, to a 12 nautical mile seaward limit of these land areas Collecting information on specific targets inside the US raises policy and legal concerns that require careful consideration, analysis and coordination with legal counsel. Therefore, Air Force components should use domestic imagery only when there is a justifiable need to do so, and then only IAW EO 12333, the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, DoD NCRSASL - 304

315 10 AFI April R, and this instruction. The following generally constitute legally valid requirements for domestic imagery: Natural Disasters. Locations in support of government planning for, emergency response to, or recovery from events such as tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, mudslides, fires, and other natural disasters Counterintelligence, Force Protection, and Security-related Vulnerability Assessments. Requirements in support of critical infrastructure analysis on federal or private property where consent has been obtained as appropriate Environmental Studies. Requirements in support of studies of wildlife, geologic features, or forestation, or similar scientific, agricultural, or environmental studies not related to regulatory or law enforcement actions Exercise, Training, Testing, or Navigational Purposes. Requirements for imagery coverage in support of system or satellite calibration, sensor evaluation, algorithm or analytical developments and training or weapon systems development or training Domestic Imagery from National Satellites. The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) is responsible for the legal review and approval of requests for the collection and dissemination of domestic imagery from national satellites. Air Force components must follow policy and procedures established in the National System for Geospatial Intelligence Manuals CS , Domestic Imagery. Air Force components must submit a PUM each year to NGA that defines the requirements for domestic imagery, outlines its intended use, and includes a proper use statement acknowledging awareness of legal and policy restrictions regarding domestic imagery. NGA will review the PUM to ensure it constitutes a legally valid requirement for domestic imagery. Air Force components must submit a Domestic Imagery Request (DIRs) to NGA for any ad hoc domestic imagery requirements that fall outside the scope of an approved PUM Domestic Imagery from all DoD imagery Satellite Platforms. An approved PUM must be on file with the appropriate Combatant Command, per their procedures, or with the appropriate Air Force MAJCOM or FOA (or delegated/designated sub-component PUM authority) before airborne or tactical DoD satellite platforms can be tasked to collect domestic imagery. Note that Tactical Satellites (TacSats) are considered to be airborne platforms. These PUMs must be IAW the format instructions found in Attachment 4. Approval for PUM requests is hereby delegated to MAJCOM and FOA commanders. Legal review at MAJCOM/FOA level is required before approval and reviews should be filed with the approved PUM requests. In the event of an emergency or crisis where US Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) is designated as lead DoD Operational Authority, all related requests for domestic imagery from airborne or tactical DoD satellite platforms must be coordinated with USNORTHCOM to ensure compliance with proper use provisions. Air Force components must submit a PUM request through the MAJCOM to the designated approval authority for any ad hoc DIR. (see paragraph 9.6. for an exception to this paragraph) Domestic Imagery from Commercial Satellites. Air Force intelligence components may obtain domestic commercial imagery without higher-level approval for valid mission purposes such as training or testing on federally owned and operated ranges, calibration- NCRSASL - 305

316 AFI April associated systems development activities, and domestic disaster relief operations. However, an internal memorandum for record (MFR) describing the purpose of the domestic imagery and the component official approving the use should be retained on file. If obtained imagery specifically identifies a US person (include private property), then the rules and procedures contained in DoD R, in particular those regarding retention, must be followed. Air Force intelligence components must not conduct or give the appearance ofconducting collection, exploitation or dissemination of commercial imagery or imagery associated products for other than approved mission purposes Distribution of Domestic Imagery. Distribution of domestic imagery to parties other than those identified in the approved PUM, DIR or MFR is prohibited, unless the recipient is reasonably perceived to have a specific, lawful governmental function requiring it IAW paragraph Unless otherwise approved, domestic imagery must be withheld from all general access database systems (e.g., Intelink) Navigational/Target Training activities Air Force units with weapon system video and tactical ISR capabilities may collect imagery during formal and continuation training missions as long as the collected imagery is not for the purpose of obtaining information about specific US persons or private property. Collected imagery may incidentally include US persons or private property without consent. Imagery may not be collected for the purpose of gathering any specific information about a US person or private entity, without consent, nor may stored imagery be retrievable by reference to US person identifiers Air Force Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) operations, exercise and training missions will not conduct nonconsensual surveillance on specifically identified US persons, unless expressly approved by the Secretary of Defense, consistent with US law and regulations. Civil law enforcement agencies, such as the US Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the US Coast Guard, will control any such data collected. NCRSASL - 306

317 NCRSASL - 307

318 NCRSASL - 308

319 NCRSASL - 309

320 NCRSASL - 310

321 NCRSASL - 311

322 NCRSASL - 312

323 NCRSASL - 313

324 NCRSASL - 314

325 NCRSASL - 315

326 NCRSASL - 316

327 NCRSASL - 317

328 NCRSASL - 318

329 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE AVIATION COMMITTEE Recommended Guidelines for the use of Unmanned Aircraft BACKGROUND: Rapid advances in technology have led to the development and increased use of unmanned aircraft. That technology is now making its way into the hands of law enforcement officers nationwide. We also live in a culture that is extremely sensitive to the idea of preventing unnecessary government intrusion into any facet of our lives. Personal rights are cherished and legally protected by the Constitution. Despite their proven effectiveness, concerns about privacy threaten to overshadow the benefits this technology promises to bring to public safety. From enhanced officer safety by exposing unseen dangers, to finding those most vulnerable who may have wandered away from their caregivers, the potential benefits are irrefutable. However, privacy concerns are an issue that must be dealt with effectively if a law enforcement agency expects the public to support the use of UA by their police. The Aviation Committee has been involved in the development of unmanned aircraft policy and regulations for several years. The Committee recommends the following guidelines for use by any law enforcement agency contemplating the use of unmanned aircraft. NCRSASL - 319

330 DEFINITIONS: 1. Model Aircraft - A remote controlled aircraft used by hobbyists, which is manufactured and operated for the purposes of sport, recreation and/or competition. 2. Unmanned Aircraft (UA) An aircraft that is intended to navigate in the air without an on-board pilot. Also called Remote Piloted Aircraft and drones. 3. UA Flight Crewmember - A pilot, visual observer, payload operator or other person assigned duties for a UA for the purpose of flight. 4. Unmanned Aircraft Pilot - A person exercising control over an unmanned aircraft during flight. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: 1. Law enforcement agencies desiring to use UA should first determine how they will use this technology, including the costs and benefits to be gained. 2. The agency should then engage their community early in the planning process, including their governing body and civil liberties advocates. 3. The agency should assure the community that it values the protections provided citizens by the U.S. Constitution. Further, that the agency will operate the aircraft in full compliance with the mandates of the Constitution, federal, state and local law governing search and seizure. 4. The community should be provided an opportunity to review and comment on agency procedures as they are being drafted. Where appropriate, recommendations should be considered for adoption in the policy. 5. As with the community, the news media should be brought into the process early in its development. SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS: 1. The UA should have the ability to capture flight time by individual flight and cumulative over a period of time. The ability to reset the flight time counter should be restricted to a supervisor or administrator. 2. The aircraft itself should be painted in a high visibility paint scheme. This will facilitate line of sight control by the aircraft pilot and allow persons on the ground to monitor the location of the aircraft. This recommendation recognizes that in some cases where officer safety is a concern, such as high risk warrant service, high visibility may not be optimal. However, most situations of this type are conducted covertly and at night. Further, given the ability to observe a large area from an aerial vantage point, it may not be necessary to fly the aircraft directly over the target location. 3. Equipping the aircraft with weapons of any type is strongly discouraged. Given the current state of the technology, the ability to effectively deploy weapons from a small UA is doubtful. Further, public acceptance of airborne use of force is likewise doubtful and could result in unnecessary community resistance to the program. 4. The use of model aircraft, modified with cameras, or other sensors, is discouraged due to concerns over reliability and safety. NCRSASL - 320

331 OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES: 1. UA operations require a Certificate of Authorization (COA) from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). A law enforcement agency contemplating the use of UA should contact the FAA early in the planning process to determine the requirements for obtaining a COA. 2. UA will only be operated by personnel, both pilots and crew members, who have been trained and certified in the operation of the system. All agency personnel with UA responsibilities, including command officers, will be provided training in the policies and procedures governing their use. 3. All flights will be approved by a supervisor and must be for a legitimate public safety mission, training, or demonstration purposes. 4. All flights will be documented on a form designed for that purpose and all flight time shall be accounted for on the form. The reason for the flight and name of the supervisor approving will also be documented. 5. An authorized supervisor/administrator will audit flight documentation at regular intervals. The results of the audit will be documented. Any changes to the flight time counter will be documented. 6. Unauthorized use of a UA will result in strict accountability. 7. Except for those instances where officer safety could be jeopardized, the agency should consider using a Reverse 911 telephone system to alert those living and working in the vicinity of aircraft operations (if such a system is available). If such a system is not available, the use of patrol car public address systems should be considered. This will not only provide a level of safety should the aircraft make an uncontrolled landing, but citizens may also be able to assist with the incident. 8. Where there are specific and articulable grounds to believe that the UA will collect evidence of criminal wrongdoing and if the UA will intrude upon reasonable expectations of privacy, the agency will secure a search warrant prior to conducting the flight. IMAGE RETENTION: 1. Unless required as evidence of a crime, as part of an on-going investigation, for training, or required by law, images captured by a UA should not be retained by the agency. 2. Unless exempt by law, retained images should be open for public inspection. 3 IACP Aviation Committee August 2012 NCRSASL - 321

332 Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations: Fourth Amendment Implications and Legislative Responses Richard M. Thompson II Legislative Attorney September 6, 2012 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Congressional Research Service R42701 NCRSASL - 322

333 Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations Summary The prospect of drone use inside the United States raises far-reaching issues concerning the extent of government surveillance authority, the value of privacy in the digital age, and the role of Congress in reconciling these issues. Drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), are aircraft that can fly without an onboard human operator. An unmanned aircraft system (UAS) is the entire system, including the aircraft, digital network, and personnel on the ground. Drones can fly either by remote control or on a predetermined flight path; can be as small as an insect and as large as a traditional jet; can be produced more cheaply than traditional aircraft; and can keep operators out of harm s way. These unmanned aircraft are most commonly known for their operations overseas in tracking down and killing suspected members of Al Qaeda and related organizations. In addition to these missions abroad, drones are being considered for use in domestic surveillance operations, which might include in furtherance of homeland security, crime fighting, disaster relief, immigration control, and environmental monitoring. Although relatively few drones are currently flown over U.S. soil, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) predicts that 30,000 drones will fill the nation s skies in less than 20 years. Congress has played a large role in this expansion. In February 2012, Congress enacted the FAA Modernization and Reform Act (P.L ), which calls for the FAA to accelerate the integration of unmanned aircraft into the national airspace system by However, some Members of Congress and the public fear there are insufficient safeguards in place to ensure that drones are not used to spy on American citizens and unduly infringe upon their fundamental privacy. These observers caution that the FAA is primarily charged with ensuring air traffic safety, and is not adequately prepared to handle the issues of privacy and civil liberties raised by drone use. This report assesses the use of drones under the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness. A reviewing court s determination of the reasonableness of drone surveillance would likely be informed by location of the search, the sophistication of the technology used, and society s conception of privacy in an age of rapid technological advancement. While individuals can expect substantial protections against warrantless government intrusions into their homes, the Fourth Amendment offers less robust restrictions upon government surveillance occurring in public places and perhaps even less in areas immediately outside the home, such as in driveways or backyards. Concomitantly, as technology advances, the contours of what is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment may adjust as people s expectations of privacy evolve. In the 112th Congress, several measures have been introduced that would restrict the use of drones at home. Senator Rand Paul and Representative Austin Scott introduced the Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2012 (S. 3287, H.R. 5925), which would require law enforcement to obtain a warrant before using drones for domestic surveillance, subject to several exceptions. Similarly, Representative Ted Poe s Preserving American Privacy Act of 2012 (H.R. 6199) would permit law enforcement to conduct drone surveillance pursuant to a warrant, but only in investigation of a felony. Congressional Research Service NCRSASL - 323

334 Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations Contents Introduction... 1 Background, Uses, and Drone Technology... 2 Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence... 4 Privacy in the Home... 6 Curtilage and Open Fields... 7 Manned Aerial Surveillance...7 Government Tracking... 8 Border Searches Warrants, Suspicionless Searches, and Special Needs Application of Fourth Amendment to Drones Location of Search Technology Used Warrant Requirement and Suspicionless Drone Searches Legislative Proposals in the 112th Congress to Constrain Domestic Use of Drones Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2012 (H.R. 5925, S. 3287) Preserving American Privacy Act of 2012 (H.R. 6199) Farmers Privacy Act of 2012 (H.R. 5961) and Other Restrictions on EPA Drone Use Alternative Proposals Conclusion Contacts Author Contact Information Congressional Research Service NCRSASL - 324

335 Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations Introduction The prospect of drone use in domestic surveillance operations has engendered considerable debate among Americans of various political ideologies. 1 Opponents of drone surveillance have complained that the use of unmanned aircraft on American soil infringes upon fundamental privacy interests and the ability to freely associate with others. 2 Some are specifically concerned about the possibility of turning military technology inward to surveil American citizens. 3 Proponents have responded by emphasizing their potential benefits, which may include protecting public safety, patrolling our nation s borders, and investigating and enforcing environmental and criminal law violations. 4 The tension between security and privacy interests is not new, but has been heightened by the explosion of surveillance technology in recent decades. Police officers who were once relegated to naked eye observations may soon have, or in some cases already possess, the The tension between security and privacy interests is not new, but has been heightened by the explosion of surveillance technology in recent decades. capability to see through walls or track an individual s movements from the sky. 5 One might question, then: What is the proper balance between the necessity of the government to keep people safe and the privacy needs of individuals? As some polls suggest, while the public supports drone usage in certain circumstances, they are less enthusiastic about using them as part of routine law enforcement activity. 6 1 The term domestic drone surveillance as used in this report is designed to cover a wide range of government uses including, but not limited to, investigating and deterring criminal or regulatory violations; conducting health and safety inspections; performing search and rescue missions; patrolling the national borders; and conducting environmental investigations. 2 Letter from Representatives Edward J. Markey and Joe Barton, Co-Chairmen of the Congressional Bi-Partisan Privacy Caucus, to Michael P. Huerta, Acting Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (April 19, 2012) ( [I]n addition to benefits, there is also the potential for drone technology to enable invasive and pervasive surveillance without adequate privacy protections. ), available at Letter%20FAA%20Drones%20.pdf; AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, PROTECTING PRIVACY FROM AERIAL SURVEILLANCE: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GOVERNMENT USE OF DRONE AIRCRAFT 1 (2011), available at 3 Mark Brunswick, Spies in the sky signal new age of surveillance, STARTRIBUNE (July 22, 2012, 6:26 a.m.), available at 4 Some state and local officials have expressed interest in employment of drones for public safety and law enforcement purposes. See, e.g., Brianne Carter, Gov. Bob McDonnell supports drones policing Virginia, ABC NEWS (May 30, 2012), available at html; Unmanned Aircraft Systems Within the Homeland: Security Game Changer? Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Oversight, Investigations, and Management of the H. Comm. on Homeland Sec., 112th Cong. 3 (2012) (statement of William R. McDaniel, Chief Deputy, Montgomery County Sheriff s Office, Conroe, TX) ( UAV systems for public safety agencies are extremely viable, effective, and economical means to enhance the public safety response to critical incidents. ). 5 The Supreme Court remarked in Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 37 (2001): The ability to see through walls and other opaque barriers is a clear, and scientifically feasible, goal of law enforcement research and development. The National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center, a program within the United States Department of Justice, features on its Internet Website projects that include a Radar-Based Through-the-Wall Surveillance System, Handheld Ultrasound Through the Wall Surveillance, and a Radar Flashlight that will enable law officers to detect individuals through interior building walls. 6 U.S. Supports Some Domestic Drone Use, But Public Registers Concern About Own Privacy 1, Monmouth University Polling Institute (June 12, 2012), available at Congressional Research Service 1 NCRSASL - 325

336 Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution safeguards Americans privacy and prevents excessive government intrusion by prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures. 7 Courts have long grappled with how to apply the text of this eighteenth century provision to twentieth century technologies. Although the Supreme Court has the final say in the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment and other constitutional safeguards, 8 Congress and, in many cases, the President are free to institute more stringent restrictions upon government surveillance operations. 9 This report first explores the potential uses of drones in the domestic sphere by federal, state, and local governments. It then surveys current Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, including cases surrounding privacy in the home, privacy in public spaces, location tracking, manned aerial surveillance, and those involving the national border. Next, it considers how existing jurisprudence may inform current and proposed drone uses. It then describes the various legislative measures introduced in the 112th Congress to address the legal and policy issues surrounding drones. Finally, it briefly identifies several alternative approaches that may constrain the potential scope of drone surveillance. Background, Uses, and Drone Technology Drones, also known as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), are aircraft that do not carry a human operator and are capable of flight under remote control or autonomous programming. 10 An unmanned aircraft system (UAS) is the entire system, including the aircraft, digital network, and personnel on the ground. 11 Drones can range from the size of an insect sometimes called nano drones or micro UAVs to the size of a traditional jet. 12 Drones are perhaps most commonly recognized from their missions abroad, including to target and kill suspects members of Al Qaeda and related groups, but they might be used for a variety of other purposes, including for both commercial and law enforcement activities within the United States. In fact, the FAA predicted that 30,000 unmanned aircraft could be flying in U.S. skies in less than 20 years. 13 One reason for this expansion has been a push by Congress for a faster 7 U.S. CONST. amend IV. 8 Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 18 (1958) ( [Marbury v. Madison] declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. ). 9 In reaction to the Supreme Court s ruling in United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976), that the privacy of an individual s bank records were generally not protected by the Fourth Amendment, Congress enacted the Right to Financial Privacy Act, P.L , 92 Stat (codified at 12 U.S.C ), creating a statutory protection for such records. 10 DEP T OF DEFENSE, DICTIONARY OF MILITARY AND ASSOCIATED TERMS 331 (2012). Unless expressly mentioned, the terms unmanned aerial vehicle, UAV, unmanned aircraft system, UAS, and drone are used interchangeably in this report. 11 Id. 12 See CRS Report R42136, U.S. Unmanned Aerial Systems, by Jeremiah Gertler, for a description of the various types of drones currently operated in the United States. 13 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, FAA AEROSPACE FORECAST: FISCAL YEARS , at 48 (2010), available at The FAA has noted that Federal agencies are planning to increase their use of UAS s. State and local governments envision using UAS s to aid in law enforcement and firefighting. Potential commercial uses are also possible, for example, in real estate photography or pipeline inspection. UAS s could perform some manned aircraft missions with less noise and fewer emissions. Id. Congressional Research Service 2 NCRSASL - 326

337 Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations integration of UAVs into U.S. airspace. 14 Most recently, as part of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Congress mandated that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) develop a comprehensive plan to safely accelerate the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system. 15 This plan shall provide for integration of UAVs by September Drones have been employed domestically by federal, state, and local governments in a range of circumstances. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) uses them to police the nation s borders to deter unlawful border crossings by unauthorized aliens, criminals, and terrorists, and to detect and interdict the smuggling of weapons, drugs, and other contraband into the country. 16 Within DHS, Customs and Border Protection s (CBP s) Office of Air and Marine (OAM) has flown missions to support federal and state agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Defense (DOD), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the U.S. Secret Service, and the Texas Rangers. 17 According to a recent disclosure by the FAA, several local police departments, state and private colleges, and small cities and towns have also received FAA Certificates of Authorization (COAs) to fly unmanned aircraft domestically. 18 Recently, a police force in North Dakota conducted the nation s first drone-assisted arrest. 19 DHS, in conjunction with local law enforcement agencies, has been testing drone capabilities in a host of other situations including detecting radiation, monitoring a hostage situation, tracking a gun tossed by a fleeing suspect, firefighting, and finding missing persons. 20 Currently, drones can be outfitted with high-powered cameras, 21 thermal imaging devices, 22 license plate readers, 23 and laser radar (LADAR). 24 In the near future, law enforcement 14 See, e.g., Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, P.L , 5102, 118 Stat. 3638, 3732 (requesting that DHS test the feasibility of using unmanned aircraft to patrol the northern border of the United States). 15 FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, P.L , 332, 126 Stat. 11, See CRS Report RS21698, Homeland Security: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Border Surveillance, by Chad C. Haddal and Jeremiah Gertler. 17 The OAM mission is to protect the American people and the Nation s critical infrastructure through the coordinated use of integrated air and marine forces. DEP T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, CBP S USE OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS IN THE NATION S BORDER SECURITY 2 (2012). These forces are used to detect, interdict, and prevent acts of terrorism and the unlawful movement of people, illegal drugs, and other contraband toward or across U.S. borders. Id. 18 There are over 300 total, including those issued to the following entities: City of Herrington, KS; Cornell University; Department of Energy Idaho National Laboratory; Eastern Gateway College Community College Steubenville, OH; Miami-Dade Police Department; Mississippi Department of Marine Resources; North Little Rock Police Department, AR; Ogden Police Department, UT; Ohio University; Seattle Police Department; Texas A&M Texas Engineering Experiment Station; Texas Department of Public Safety; Texas State University; University of Connecticut; University of Florida; U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service; Utah State University; Virginia Tech. See Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Federal Aviation Administration, 19 New age of surveillance, supra note Brian Bennett, Drones Tested as Tools for Police and Firefighters, LOS ANGELES TIMES (August 5, :00 A.M.), 21 The U.S. Army recently acquired a 1.8 gigapixel camera for use on its drones. This camera offers 900 times the pixels of a 2 megapixel camera found in some cell phones. It can track objects on the ground 65 miles away from an altitude of 20,000 feet. US Army unveils 1.8 gigapixel camera helicopter drone, BBC NEWS (December 29, :11 p.m.), 22 Infrared cameras, also known as thermal imaging, can see objects through walls based on the relative levels of heat produced by the objects. See Draganflyer X6, Thermal Infrared Camera, draganflyer-x6/features/flir-camera.php. 23 This sensor can recognize and permit drones to track vehicles based on license plate numbers. Customs and Border (continued...) Congressional Research Service 3 NCRSASL - 327

338 Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations organizations might seek to outfit drones with facial recognition or soft biometric recognition, which can recognize and track individuals based on attributes such as height, age, gender, and skin color. 25 As explained below, the relative sophistication of drones contrasted with traditional surveillance technology may influence a court s decision whether domestic drone use is lawful under the Fourth Amendment. Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence The Fourth Amendment s story is one of continuity and change. Core values such as privacy and protection from excessive and arbitrary government intrusion are always within its sweep. A continuing question, though, is how the demands of its protection apply to an ever-changing society in which new and pervasive forms of technology are increasingly common. Although there are numerous rules and exceptions throughout the Supreme Court s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, this section will explore those most pertinent to domestic drone use. In short, the Fourth Amendment regulates when, where, and how the government may conduct searches and seizures. The Amendment provides, in relevant part: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated[.] 26 The Fourth Amendment does not apply to all government acts, but only to those that constitute a search. So when does government monitoring constitute a Fourth Amendment search for which a warrant is generally required? Initially, courts assessment focused on the specific area being investigated. Consider the 1928 case Olmstead v. United States. 27 There, the Supreme Court held that police wiretaps of the defendant s home telephone did not constitute a Fourth Amendment search because the police did not trespass onto Olmstead s property to intercept his conversation. 28 The Court s thinking at the time was that if the person s home, tangible property, or papers were not physically invaded, then no search in the constitutional sense occurred. Almost 40 years later, the Court shifted focus from property to (...continued) Protection Today, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Support Border Security (July 2004), CustomsToday/2004/Aug/other/aerial_vehicles.xml. 24 This sensor produces three-dimensional images, and has the capability to see through trees and foliage. U.S. ARMY, UAS CENTER FOR EXCELLENCE, EYES OF THE ARMY US ARMY ROADMAP FOR UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS , at 83 (2010). 25 See Clay Dillow, Army Developing Drones that Can Recognize Your Face from a Distance, POPSCI (September 28, 2011), 5:01 p.m.), available at As for weaponization, a sheriff s office in Texas has recently acquired a 50-pound ShadowHawk Helicopter that can carry a 40mm grenade launcher and a 12-gauge shotgun. Talk of drones patrolling U.S. skies spawns anxiety, USA TODAY (June 19, :13 A.M.), /drone-backlash/ /1. The sheriff s office denied that these lethal weapons would be used, but is reportedly contemplating use of rubber bullets and tear gas on their drones. Groups Concerned Over Arming Domestic Drones, CBS DC (May 23, :18 P.M.), Although beyond the scope of this report, it should be noted that excessive force claims are analyzed under the Fourth Amendment s protection against unreasonable seizures. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989) ( Where, as here, the excessive force claim arises in the context of an arrest or investigatory stop of a free citizen, it is most properly characterized as one invoking the protections of the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees citizens the right to be secure in their persons... against unreasonable... seizures. ). 26 U.S. CONST. amend IV. 27 Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 466 (1928). 28 Id. Congressional Research Service 4 NCRSASL - 328

339 Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations privacy interests. 29 In Katz v. United States, decided in 1967, the Court held that an FBI agent s use of a bug to listen to the private conversations of Mr. Katz while in a telephone booth violated his Fourth Amendment rights. 30 Although he was in a public telephone booth and there was no physical invasion, the Court noted that what a person seeks to preserve private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected. 31 One of the modern Fourth Amendment tests relied upon by courts in assessing whether government monitoring constitutes a search derives from Justice Harlan s concurrence in Katz. It considers whether the person has a subjective expectation of privacy in the area to be searched and whether society is prepared to deem that expectation reasonable. 32 Although the Court said in Katz that the Fourth Amendment protects people not places, 33 Justice Harlan noted that determining what protection it affords people... requires reference to a place. 34 And as Justice Scalia observed when writing for a majority of the Court in United States v. Jones, a Fourth Amendment search occurs, at a minimum, where the Government obtains information by physically intruding on a constitutionally protected area. 35 The majority in Jones indicated that the reasonable expectation of privacy test was never intended to replace the property-based approach used in earlier cases, but merely augment it. 36 So where do individuals enjoy the most Fourth Amendment protection? The least? Why does the location dictate the level of protection? And how does technology affect society s expectation of privacy? When analyzing domestic drone use under the Fourth Amendment, a reviewing court may be informed by cases surrounding privacy in the home, privacy in public spaces, location tracking, manned aerial surveillance, those involving the national border, and warrantless searches under the special needs doctrine. 29 Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967). 30 Id. at Id. at Id. at 361 (Harlan, J., concurring). 33 Id. at Id. at 361 (Harlan, J., concurring); see also Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984). We have frequently acknowledged that privacy interests are not coterminous with property rights. E. g., United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 91 (1980). However, because property rights reflect society s explicit recognition of a person s authority to act as he wishes in certain areas, [they] should be considered in determining whether an individual s expectations of privacy are reasonable. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 153 (1978) (Powell, J., concurring). Indeed, the Court has suggested that, insofar as [one] of the main rights attaching to property is the right to exclude others,... one who owns or lawfully possesses or controls property will in all likelihood have a legitimate expectation of privacy by virtue of this right to exclude. Id., at 144, n. 12. Oliver, 466 U.S. at United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945, 950 n.3 (2012). 36 Id. Congressional Research Service 5 NCRSASL - 329

340 Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations Privacy in the Home The home has always held a central place in American life, and remains the area accorded the greatest Fourth Amendment protection. 37 The Fourth Amendment protects this zone of privacy by ensuring that the right of the people to be secure in their... houses... against unreasonable search and seizure, shall not be violated[.] 38 In most instances, the Supreme Court has rigorously adhered to this safeguard. 39 For instance, although police officers may make a warrantless arrest of an individual for a felony offense committed in public, 40 they may not step inside his home without a warrant, barring any recognized exception. 41 The right of the people to be secure in their... houses... against unreasonable search and seizure, shall not be violated[.] U.S. CONST. amend IV. In addition to a physical entry and search of the home, police are likewise prohibited from using certain technology to pierce this zone of privacy. In Kyllo v. United States, government agents used a thermal-imaging device to determine heat patterns inside the home of Danny Kyllo. 42 The Court began with the presumption that a warrantless search of a home is unreasonable. 43 Ultimately, the Court protected this realm of guaranteed privacy by holding that obtaining information about the inside of a home that could not otherwise be obtained except by entering the home, through the use of technology not in general public use, is a search covered by the Fourth Amendment. 44 The home, however, does not provide an absolute shield against government surveillance. As Justice Harlan emphasized in Katz, [A] man s home is, for most purposes, a place where he expects privacy, but objects, activities, or statements that he exposes to the plain view of outsiders are not protected because no intention to keep them to himself has been exhibited. Indeed, in certain instances, police may use their natural senses to conduct warrantless searches of the inside of a home. 45 To fall under this exception known as the plain view doctrine the police must be in a lawful vantage point when they conduct the surveillance, and the incriminating nature of the evidence must be readily apparent DANIEL SOLOVE, UNDERSTANDING PRIVACY 59 (2008). 38 U.S. CONST. amend IV. 39 Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 512 (1961) ( At the very core stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and be free from unreasonable government intrusion. ). 40 United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976). 41 Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 603 (1980). This protection not only covers traditional houses, but apartments, Clinton v. Virginia, 377 U.S 158 (1963), and motel rooms, Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483 (1964). 42 Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, (2001). 43 Id. at Id. at In one case, police observation of marijuana plants through a crack in the house s siding did not constitute an unlawful search. United States v. Hammett, 236 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th Cir. 2001). In another, the court held that the police officer s observation of contraband through the front dining room window was not unlawful. United States v. Taylor, 90 F.3d 903, 909 (4th Cir. 1996). 46 Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 466 (1971). Congressional Research Service 6 NCRSASL - 330

341 Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations Curtilage and Open Fields Once an individual moves from the confines of the home, he is entitled to different Fourth Amendment considerations. Depending on a host of varying factors, areas outside of the home may be considered curtilage or open fields. 47 The curtilage is the area immediately surrounding the home an area the Court has granted similar protections as the inside of the home. 48 To determine if an area is curtilage, a court will look at how close the area is to the home; whether the area is within a fence surrounding the home; how the area is used; and whether the area is protected from observation by passersby. 49 Although an area may be deemed curtilage as with the home it is not veiled with unconditional constitutional protection. As the Court noted in one aerial surveillance case: The Fourth Amendment protection of the home has never been extended to require law enforcement officers to shield their eyes when passing by a home on public thoroughfares. Nor does the mere fact that an individual has taken measures to restrict some views of his activities preclude an officer s observations from a public vantage point where he has a right to be and which renders the activities clearly visible. 50 On the other hand, the area outside the curtilage is sometimes considered open fields, which do not provide the setting for those intimate activities that the Amendment is intended to shelter from governmental interference or surveillance, 51 and thus are not given similar Fourth Amendment protections. Differentiating between the two is no easy task. In one case, for example, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the defendant s driveway was not curtilage as he had taken no affirmative steps to block it from observation by passers-by. 52 Furthermore, in the fly-over cases discussed infra, the Supreme Court has permitted similar searches in both open fields and the curtilage, to some extent eliminating any constitutional difference between the two. Manned Aerial Surveillance In a series of cases that provide the closest analogy to UAVs, the Supreme Court addressed the use of manned aircraft to conduct domestic surveillance over residential and industrial areas. In each, the Court held that the fly-over at issue was not a search prohibited by the Fourth Amendment, as the areas surveilled were open to public view. 47 United States v. Hester, 365 U.S 57 (1924) (distinguishing between the doctrines of curtilage and open fields). 48 The Court has defined curtilage as the area to which extends the intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man s home and the privacies of life. Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 180 (1984) (quoting Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630 (1886)). 49 United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294, 301 (1987). 50 California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 213 (1986). 51 Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227, (1986) (quoting Oliver, 466 U.S. at 179). 52 Maisano v. Welcher, 940 F.2d 499 (9th Cir. 1991). Congressional Research Service 7 NCRSASL - 331

342 Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations In California v. Ciraolo, police received a tip that an individual was growing marijuana in his backyard next to his suburban home. 54 Because two fences blocked their view of the yard, officers flew a fixed-wing aircraft at an altitude of 1,000 feet over the property to conduct a visual inspection. From this vantage point, the officers readily identified with the naked eye marijuana plants growing in the defendant s yard. The Court held that the defendant s expectation of privacy in the area immediately surrounding his home was not reasonable, since what a person knowingly exposes to the public... is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. 55 Any member of the public flying in this airspace who glanced down could have seen everything these officers observed, the Court remarked. 56 Much weight was placed on the fact that the plane was at all times in navigable airspace as defined by federal statute. 57 What a person knowingly exposes to the public... is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. 53 Similarly, in Florida v. Riley, local police received a tip that an individual was growing marijuana in a greenhouse located 10 to 20 feet away from his mobile home. 58 The officers could not see the contents of the greenhouse from the ground, so they flew a helicopter over the defendant s backyard at an altitude of 400 feet. While overhead, an officer saw marijuana plants through a crack in the greenhouse roof. Because the helicopter, like the plane in Ciraolo, was in navigable airspace where any member of the public could have flown the Court did not consider this a search for which a warrant was required. 59 In the final case of the series, Dow Chemical v. United States, the Court was asked whether a theory of industrial curtilage would prevent a government agency from conducting aerial surveillance over a 2,000-acre commercial plant. 60 There, after Dow Chemical Co. refused access to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the EPA hired a commercial aerial photographer to take photos of the facility using a precision aerial mapping camera. Having ruled out the argument that the areas surrounding an industrial complex are entitled to the same protection as similar areas surrounding a home, the Court concluded that photographing the plant from navigable airspace was not a search. 61 Government Tracking Like the aerial surveillance cases, individuals have reduced and in some contexts no Fourth Amendment protection from government tracking of their travel in public places. This has permitted the government to conduct warrantless tracking of a vehicle s movements while traveling on public streets. However, once people enter a private residence, the tracking must 53 Ciraolo, 476 U.S. at Id. at Id. at Id. at It should be noted that although the police did take photographs with a 35-millimeter camera, the warrant relied on naked-eye observations and not the photographs. Thus, the holding was based on the naked-eye observations, unaided by the camera. 57 Id. at 213 (citing 49 U.S.C. 1304). 58 Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445, 448 (1989). 59 Id. 60 Dow Chemical Co., 476 U.S Id. at 239 Congressional Research Service 8 NCRSASL - 332

343 Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations cease. Also, using technology to perform pervasive tracking might not meet Fourth Amendment muster. Consider, for example, these two government tracking cases, United States v. Knotts and United States v. Karo. 62 In both cases, the government hid a location monitoring device in an item that was then given to the suspects. In Knotts, the police tracked the suspect s movements solely while traveling on public roadways. 63 The Court held that people have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their movements on public streets. As such, no Fourth Amendment search occurred, thus no warrant was required. By contrast, in Karo, the police tracked a beeper device on public streets and while the beeper was in a private residence a location not open to visual surveillance. 64 Indiscriminate monitoring of property that has been withdrawn from public view, the Court declared, would present far too serious a threat to privacy interests in the home to escape entirely some sort of Fourth Amendment oversight. 65 The Court held the search unlawful. Although surveillance in public is generally not considered a search, pervasive tracking may cross the line. Take, for instance, the Supreme Court s recent decision in the GPS tracking case United States v. Jones. 66 In that case, the Court held that the attachment and monthlong tracking of a GPS device on an individual s vehicle constituted a trespass, and hence a Fourth Amendment search. 67 The Court grounded its decision in the property-based approach to assessing what constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, which had been more prevalent in the late 19th and early 20th century cases involving relatively unsophisticated technology. The Court s focus on whether the attachment of a tracking device constitutes a trespass triggering Fourth Amendment protections is not necessarily applicable to drone surveillance. However, in two separate concurring opinions that together made up five members of the Court, an alternative framework was proposed that may have more far-reaching implications for the domestic use of UAVs. Justice Alito, concurring in the Court s judgment, and joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan, would have held that the use of longer term GPS monitoring in investigations of most offenses impinges on expectations of privacy. For such offenses, society s expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not Tracking an individual for an extended period and indeed, in the main, simply could not secretly monitor and catalogue reflects a wealth of detail every single movement of an individual s car for a very long period. about her familial, political, Justice Sotomayor, joining the controlling opinion in Jones, but also professional, religious, and concurring separately, noted that although following people for a short sexual associations. 68 period of time conveys little information about them, tracking an individual for an extended period reflects a wealth of detail about her familial, political, 62 United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983); United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984). 63 Knotts, 460 U.S. at 279. The Court reiterated that its analysis was based on the fact that the beeper was tracked within the vicinity of a home, not actually in the home. Id 64 Karo, 468 U.S. at Id. at United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012). 67 Id. at 949. See generally CRS Report R42511, United States v. Jones: GPS Monitoring, Property, and Privacy, by Richard M. Thompson II. 68 Jones, 132 S. Ct. at 955 (Sotomayor, J., concurring). Congressional Research Service 9 NCRSASL - 333

344 Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations professional, religious, and sexual associations. 69 Thus, the length of time an individual is kept under surveillance and the breadth of data collected through such surveillance may inform a reviewing court whether a particular surveillance practice constitutes a Fourth Amendment search. 70 Border Searches Even more so than surveillance of public places generally, law enforcement agencies are granted significant deference to conduct surveillance at or near American borders. The federal government has a significant interest in protecting American borders from crossings by persons attempting to enter unlawfully, drug trafficking, and, perhaps most importantly, the transit of weapons and persons seeking to do harm to American people and infrastructure. Congress has granted federal law enforcement agencies significant search powers at the border. Section 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), codified at 8 U.S.C. 1357, authorizes immigration officers to conduct warrantless searches of any vessel within a reasonable distance from the United States border and any vehicle within 25 miles from a border for the purpose of patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United States. 71 Similarly, 19 U.S.C. 482 authorizes customs officers to search vehicles and persons on which or whom they have reasonable cause to believe are carrying goods unlawfully into the United States. 72 The Supreme Court has likewise acknowledged this federal interest in the borders, observing that [t]he Government s interest in preventing the entry of unwanted persons and effects is at its zenith at the international border. 73 Again, the touchstone in every Fourth Amendment case is whether the search is reasonable. 74 The Court observed in United States v. Montoya De Hernandez that the Fourth Amendment balance of reasonableness is qualitatively different at the international border. 75 Routine searches, the Court continued, are not subject to any requirement of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or warrant. 76 Routine searches have included pat downs for weapons or contraband, 77 the use of drug sniffing dogs, 78 and the 69 Id. 70 Although the two concurring opinions in Jones arguably do not constitute binding precedent, lower courts have combined them as a possible alternative holding. See United States v. Hanna, No CR, 2012 WL , at *3 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 3, 2012) (analyzing the issue of Fourth Amendment standing to contest GPS surveillance under both the trespass theory and Katz s privacy test); State v. Zahn, No , 2012 WL (S.D. Mar. 14, 2012) (holding that both the trespass approach and the mosaic theory can apply to GPS tracking); but see United States v. Bradshaw, No. 1:11-CR-257, 2012 WL (N.D. Ohio Mar. 8, 2012) (noting that the Jones majority did not adopt the mosaic theory) U.S.C U.S.C In the 112th Congress, the House of Representatives introduced H.R. 1505, which would enlarge CBP s authority to secure U.S. borders on federal land. H.R. 1505; see also John S. Adams, Border bill would expand Homeland Security powers, USA TODAY (September 26, 2011). 73 United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149, 152 (2004). 74 Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 439 (1973). 75 United States v. Montoya De Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 538 (1985). 76 Id. 77 United States v. Beras, 183 F.3d 22, 24 (1st Cir. 1999) (ruling that pat down of defendant s legs was routine search). 78 United States v. Kelly, 302 F.3d 291, (5th Cir. 2002). Congressional Research Service 10 NCRSASL - 334

345 Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations inspection of luggage. 79 By contrast, non-routine searches are those that go beyond a limited intrusion, and require the government official to have (at a minimum) reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. 80 Prolonged detentions, 81 strip searches, 82 and body cavity searches 83 have all been considered non-routine searches. Unlike searches directly at the border, the Court has shown more reticence in granting law enforcement unfettered discretion to conduct searches near, but not directly at, the border. In Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, the defendant s vehicle was stopped and searched by U.S. Border Patrol agents 25 miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border. 84 The agents had neither a warrant nor probable cause, nor even reasonable suspicion, to conduct the search. The government argued that the search was permissible under 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. A federal statute, the Court noted, cannot trump the Constitution. The Court refused to permit this suspicionless search, as it was conducted neither at the border nor at its functional equivalent. 85 Warrants, Suspicionless Searches, and Special Needs The baseline rule in Fourth Amendment cases is that police must obtain a warrant to search an individual or their property in all but a few limited instances. 86 This rule ensures that an independent judicial officer, rather than a police officer in the field, is determining whether there is probable cause to conduct a search or seizure. 87 Over time, however, the Court has loosened this warrant requirement in instances where a strict showing of individualized suspicion of probable cause would hinder the government from addressing health and safety concerns. 88 In two lines of overlapping cases administrative searches and special needs cases the Court has balanced the individual s privacy interest against the government s interest to determine if a 79 United States v. Okafor, 285 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2002). 80 Montoya De Hernandez, 473 U.S. at Id. 82 United States v. Asbury, 586 F.2d 973, 975 (1978). 83 United States v. Ogberaha, 771 F.2d 655, 657 (2d Cir. 1985). 84 Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, (1973). 85 Id. at ( For example, searches at an established station near the border, at a point marking the confluence of two or more roads that extend from the border, might be functional equivalents from border searches. For another example, a search of the passengers and cargo of an airplane arriving at a St. Louis airport after a nonstop flight from Mexico would clearly be the functional equivalent of a border search. ). Like Almeida-Sanchez, Border Patrol agents in United States v. Brignoni-Ponce stopped an individual s vehicle as part of a roving patrol solely because the occupants appeared to be of Mexican descent, with no proof of illegal activity. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, (1975). Again, the Court struck down this practice of suspicionless stops, remarking that [i]n the context of border area stops, the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment demands something more than the broad and unlimited discretion sought by the Government. Roads near the border carry not only aliens seeking to enter the country illegally, but a large volume of legitimate traffic as well. Id. at Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 390 (1978) (citation omitted). 87 Johnson v. Untied States, 333 U.S. 10, 14 (1948) ( The right of officers to thrust themselves into a home is also a grave concern, not only to the individual but to a society which chooses to dwell in reasonable security and freedom from surveillance. When the right of privacy must reasonably yield to the right of search is, as a rule, to be decided by a judicial officer, not by a policeman or government enforcement agent. ). Probable cause is found when, looking at the totality-of-the-circumstances there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983). 88 Eve Brensike Primus, Disentangling Administrative Searches, 111 COLUM. L. REV. 254, 256 (2011). Congressional Research Service 11 NCRSASL - 335

346 Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations warrant or any individualized suspicion is required. 89 These two theories permit law enforcement to conduct dragnet searches in certain instances. Suspicionless general searches are ones in which the government searches or seizes every person, place, or thing in a specific location or involved in a specific activity based only on a showing of a generalized government interest. 90 Suspicionless searches have been conducted at the national border, 91 private businesses 92 and police roadblocks. 93 In the roadblock cases, the Court has balanced the government s interest against the individual s privacy interest to determine whether police may stop and question drivers without a warrant or any suspicion of criminal wrongdoing. In Michigan Dep t of State Police v. Sitz, the Court upheld the suspicionless stopping and examination of drivers for intoxication at sobriety checkpoints. 94 The Court reasoned that the high incidence of drunk driving balanced against the minimal intrusion on drivers permitted suspicionless checkpoints. In City of Indianapolis v. Edmund, however, law enforcement was not permitted to set up a drug interdiction checkpoint. 95 The Court held that searches such as this violated the Fourth Amendment when their primary purpose is to uncover evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing. 96 Justice O Connor observed that if this type of roadblock were allowed the Fourth Amendment would do little to prevent such intrusions from becoming a routine part of American life. 97 Application of Fourth Amendment to Drones As evidenced by the foregoing, the constitutionality of domestic drone surveillance may depend upon the context in which such surveillance takes place. Whether a targeted individual is at home, in his backyard, in the public square, or near a national border will play a large role in determining whether he is entitled to privacy. Equally important is the sophistication of the technology used by law enforcement and the duration of the surveillance. Both of these factors will likely inform a reviewing court s reasoning as to whether the government s surveillance constitutes an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Location of Search Based on existing case law, it is reasonable to assume that surveillance of an individual while in his home an area accorded the greatest Fourth Amendment protection using technology not in general public use would be an unlawful search absent a search warrant. The Supreme Court in 89 Nat l Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656, (1989). 90 Primus, supra note 88, at United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 566 (1976). 92 United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S 311, 317 (inspection of gun dealer s storeroom) ( We have little difficulty in concluding that where, as here, regulatory inspections further urgent federal interest, and the possibilities of abuse and the threat to privacy are not of impressive dimensions, the inspection may proceed without a warrant where specifically authorized by statute. ). 93 Mich. Dep t of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 455 (1990). 94 Id. at City of Indianapolis v. Edmund, 531 U.S. 32 (2000). 96 Id. at Id. Congressional Research Service 12 NCRSASL - 336

347 Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations Kyllo was particularly concerned about law enforcement s use of powerful equipment to peer inside an individual s home. Currently, UAVs carry high-megapixel cameras and thermal imaging, and will soon have the capacity to see through walls and ceilings. 98 These technologies are not generally available to the public, and under current jurisprudence, their use by law enforcement would probably constitute a search covered by the Fourth Amendment. However, the use of low-powered cameras or other unsophisticated technology to view people and objects in plain view while in their home might not trigger Fourth Amendment protections. The rationale for this notion is that officers are not required to avert their eyes when they see illegal activity in plain view, especially when the subject of the search has taken no affirmative efforts to hide their activity from public view. Moving beyond the home, it is unclear whether circumstances exist in which the area immediately surrounding the home for instance, a backyard, a swimming pool, a deck, or a porch would receive similar protections as the interior of the home if surveilled by drones or other aerial vehicles. 99 Although the Supreme Court has recited on many occasions that a person located in a home s curtilage is accorded similar privacy protections as when inside the home, the aerial surveillance cases arguably constitute an exception to this general principle. In the two aerial cases, Riley and Ciraolo, the area surveilled was within close proximity of the home, yet the police surveillance at altitudes of 400 and 1,000 feet were not considered a search. Based on the aerial surveillance cases, it may be reasonable to presume a warrant would not be required (nor, perhaps, any suspicion, for that matter) to conduct drone surveillance of most public places for a relatively short period of time. The Supreme Court remarked in Ciraolo that the Fourth Amendment simply does not require the police traveling in the public airways at [1,000 feet] to obtain a warrant to observe what is visible to the naked eye. 100 However, the rarity of drone flights may distinguish their use from surveillance by the piloted aircraft used in the three aerial cases decided by the Court. All three of these cases were premised on the fact that each aircraft was flying in navigable airspace, and that these flights were not sufficiently rare to provide a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area to be searched. To this point, Justice White remarked in Riley that there is nothing in the record or before us to suggest that helicopters flying at 400 feet are sufficiently rare in this country to lend substance to respondent s claim that he reasonably anticipated that his greenhouse would not be subject to observation from that altitude. 101 Presently, use of UAVs in U.S. airspace is considerably less common. The FAA has issued only approximately 300 licenses for drone use in U.S. airspace. 102 The general public would likely find it exceedingly unusual for a drone to fly over their homes taking surveillance photographs. This rarity might factor into a reviewing court s determination of whether individuals have a legitimate expectation of privacy from various forms of drone surveillance while in a public place EYES OF THE ARMY, supra note See generally, Paul McBride, Beyond Orwell: The Application of Unmanned Aircraft Systems in Domestic Surveillance Operations, 74 J. Air. L. & Com. 627, ( This implies that although the curtilage does not benefit from the absolute protection afforded to the interior of the home, there is a close relationship between the two, and that technology directed at the home and its curtilage will be subjected to a more skeptical analysis than would be applied in a case involving open fields or industrial areas. ). 100 California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 215 (1986). 101 Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445, (1989). 102 Federal Aviation Administration, supra note Ciraolo, 476 U.S. at 212. However, in determining society s privacy expectations, a reviewing court might also take (continued...) Congressional Research Service 13 NCRSASL - 337

348 Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations The federal government s authority to use unmanned aircraft is undoubtedly at its maximum near U.S. borders. One of the federal government s only affirmative duties is to protect citizens from external harm. 104 This includes securing the borders. The Court has hesitated from interfering with the performance of this duty, and it would in all likelihood demonstrate the same deference when it comes to the use of UAVs. Moreover, the Supreme Court s rulings in border cases have all involved active searches either a physical search of a vehicle or stopping and questioning a vehicle s passenger. Surveillance by UAVs, on the other hand, may be considered more passive and therefore may be even less likely to run afoul of Fourth Amendment requirements. Drone surveillance does not require any physical manipulation of a person or his things. UAVs also do not require the seizure of a person for any period of time (though drone surveillance may lead to law enforcement physically apprehending a person who is seen engaging in suspected illegal activity). However, the Court has shown some reticence about giving law enforcement carte blanche search power at the border. Roving vehicle patrols and indiscriminate searches in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States and United States v. Brignoni-Ponce were deemed unconstitutional. 105 It is unclear whether this reticence would extend to drone surveillance along the border if it were to become significantly widespread. Technology Used Like location, the technology used by UAVs may be a decisive factor considered by courts in determining whether individual s have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the object or area of the challenged drone search. Technological developments make it increasingly easy to share and acquire personal information about others, oftentimes without their direct knowledge or consent. As surveillance technology advances and becomes ever-present in Americans lives, people s conception of privacy may tend to oscillate. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority in Kyllo v. United States, remarked on this trend: It would be foolish to contend that the degree of privacy secured to citizens by the Fourth Amendment has been entirely unaffected by the advance of technology. For example,... the technology enabling human flight has exposed to public view (and hence, we have said, to official observation) uncovered portions of the house and its curtilage that once were private. The question we confront today is what limits there are upon this power of technology to shrink the realm of guaranteed privacy. 106 Justice Alito, joined by three other justices in his United States v. Jones concurrence, likewise observed: The Katz test rests on the assumption that this hypothetical reasonable person has a welldeveloped and stable set of privacy expectations. But technology can change those expectations. Dramatic technological change may lead to periods in which popular expectations are in flux and may ultimately produce significant changes in popular attitudes. New technology may provide increased convenience or security at the expense of privacy, (...continued) into consideration the proliferation of aerial mapping such as Google Maps and Google Earth conducted by private actors. See generally Google Maps, Street View, U.S. CONST. art. IV, 4 ( The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion[.] ). 105 Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973); United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975). 106 Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, (2001). Congressional Research Service 14 NCRSASL - 338

349 Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations and many people may find the tradeoff worthwhile. And even if the public does not welcome the diminution of privacy that new technology entails, they may eventually reconcile themselves to this development as inevitable. 107 The crucial question, then, is whether drones have the potential to be significantly more invasive than traditional surveillance technologies such as manned aircraft or low-powered cameras technologies that have been upheld in previous cases. In this vein, some have asked whether using sophisticated digital platforms on a drone is any different from attaching the same instrument to a lamppost or traditional aircraft. 108 Take, for example, the tracking of license plates. Currently, many states and municipalities employ automatic license plate readers (ALPRs), which are usually mounted on police vehicles or stationary objects along the streets, take a snapshot of a license plate as a car drives by, and store this information in a large database for possible later use by law enforcement. 109 It is alleged that these devices can be used to track a person s movements when police aggregate the data from a multitude of ALPR stations. 110 A majority of the reviewing federal circuit courts have held that a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his license plate number. 111 However, it appears that no federal court has addressed the constitutionality of the use ALPRs (whether attached to a drone, manned vehicle, or a stationary device), as opposed to plate numbers collected by a human observer. Nonetheless, the question remains whether attaching an ALPR or any similar sophisticated technology to a drone would alter the constitutionality of its use by law enforcement. Some say yes, arguing that the sophistication of drone technology in and of itself present[s] a unique threat to privacy. 112 Drones are smaller, can fly longer, and can be built more cheaply than traditional aircraft. For instance, defense firm Lockheed Martin s Stalker a small, electrically powered drone can be recharged from the ground using a laser. 113 It now has a flight time of more than 48 hours. As this technology advances, it is reported that some drones could theoretically stay in the air forever. 114 Unlike a stationary license plate tracker or video camera, drones can lock on a target s every move for days, and possibly weeks and months. This ability to closely monitor an individual s movements with pinpoint accuracy 107 United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945, 962 (2012) (Alito, J., concurring). 108 Stanford Law Review Symposium, Drones Privacy Paradox: Privacy and its Conflicting Values (February 2, 2012), ACLU Seeks Details on Automatic License Plate Readers in Massive Nationwide Request, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (July 31, 2012), Id. 111 See, e.g., Olabisiomotosho v. City of Houston, 185 F.3d 521, 529 (5th Cir. 1999) ( A motorist has no privacy interest in her license plate number. Like the area outside the cartilage [sic] of a dwelling, a car s license plate number is constantly open to the plain view of passersby. ) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted); United States v. Ellison, 462 F.3d 557, 562 (6th Cir. 2006) ( No argument can be made that a motorist seeks to keep the information on his license plate private. The very purpose of a license plate number, like that of a Vehicle Identification Number, is to provide identifying information to law enforcement officials and others. ); United States v. Castaneda, 494 F.3d 1146, 1151 (9th Cir. 2007); United States v. Walraven, 892 F.2d 972, 974 (10th 1989). 112 Using Unmanned Aircraft Systems Within the Homeland: Security Game Changer? Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Oversight, Investigations, and Management of the H. Comm. on Homeland Sec., 112th Cong. 3 (2012) (statement of Amie Stepanovich, Counsel, Electronic Privacy Information Center). 113 Mark Brown, Lockheed uses ground-based laser to recharge drone mid-flight, WIRED (July 12, 2012), available at Id. Lockheed has reportedly been working on extending flight times from days to months. Id. Congressional Research Service 15 NCRSASL - 339

350 Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations may raise more significant constitutional concerns than some other types of surveillance technology. Furthermore, the technology and sophistication of drones may mark a considerable departure from the traditional technologies used in the three manned aerial surveillance cases decided by the Supreme Court. First, all three holdings in Ciraolo, Riley, and Dow Chemical were premised on naked-eye searches. Chief Justice Burger remarked in Dow Chemical: It may well be, as the government concedes, that surveillance of private property using highly sophisticated surveillance equipment not generally available to the public, such as satellite technology, might be constitutionally proscribed absent a warrant. 115 As noted above, the sophistication of surveillance technology available to drones, such as facial recognition or laser radar which can see through walls, may lead some to question the relevance of prior Fourth Amendment jurisprudence concerning more rudimentary forms of surveillance technology. The sophistication of drones also has the ability to break down any practical privacy safeguard. In the pre-computer age, the greatest privacy protections were neither constitutional nor statutory, but practical. Putting officers everywhere in the community cost too much for local police departments. This acted as a natural barrier to excessive police presence. Drones are not hindered by similar limitations. This is similar to the expansion of GPS technology observed by the five concurring justices in United States v. Jones. There, Justice Sotomayor, writing for herself, noted that because GPS technology was cheaper and performed in a surreptitious manner, it evades the ordinary checks that constrain abusive law enforcement practices: limited police resources and community hostility. 116 Justice Alito sounded a similar note in Jones: Traditional surveillance for any extended period of time was difficult and costly and therefore rarely undertaken. [GPS This access to inexpensive technology may significantly reduce budgetary concerns that once checked the government from widespread surveillance. devices] make long-term monitoring relatively easy and cheap. 117 Instead of putting more officers in the field, a police force could put drones in the sky for potentially less expense. Already, drones with video capabilities can be purchased from private vendors for a few hundred dollars. 118 This access to inexpensive technology may significantly reduce budgetary concerns that once checked the government from widespread surveillance. The duration and pervasiveness of drone surveillance two factors closely associated with the technology employed by law enforcement may also influence a court s Fourth Amendment analysis. Consider the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal s ruling in United States v. Cuevas- Sanchez. 119 In that case, federal law enforcement agents suspected the defendant was using his home as a drop house for drug traffickers. After obtaining a court order, the agents installed a video camera on a utility pole overlooking the defendant s 10-foot high fence surrounding his back yard. The officers observed the removal of drugs from the gas tanks of several cars parked in the defendant s yard. Based on these observations, the defendant was arrested whereupon the police seized a large amount of marijuana. At trial, the defendant moved to suppress the evidence 115 Dow Chemical, 476 U.S. at United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945, 956 (Sotomayor, J., concurring) (internal quotation marks omitted). 117 Id. 118 See, e.g., Apple Store, Parrot AR.Drone 2.0, This aircraft, is remote-controlled by an iphone or ipad, and has a high-definition camera that can take both pictures and videos. Id. 119 United States v. Cuevas-Sanchez, 821 F.2d 248 (5th Cir. 1987). Congressional Research Service 16 NCRSASL - 340

351 Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations on the basis that the warrant was defective. However, the court first addressed whether the video surveillance was a search under the Fourth Amendment. In determining that the video surveillance was a search, the panel noted that this was not a one-time overhead flight or a glance over the fence by a passer-by.... It does not follow that Ciraolo authorizes any type of surveillance whatever just because one type of minimally-intrusive aerial observation is possible. 120 Drones have the capability to stay in the air for long periods of time and can hover in one location. Similar to the mounted camera in Cuevas-Sanchez, this permits law enforcement to employ drones in prolonged surveillance operations. This capability may sway a court s determination of whether certain types of warrantless drone surveillance are compatible with the Fourth Amendment. Warrant Requirement and Suspicionless Drone Searches Applying the Fourth Amendment to drones requires application of the threshold question: was there a search? Again, this will depend on all the factors discussed above the area of the search, the technology used, and whether society would respect the target s expectation of privacy in the place searched. If a reviewing court concludes that the drone surveillance was not a search, neither a warrant nor any degree of individualized suspicion would be required. If, however, the court concluded there was a search, then a court would ask whether a warrant is required, if one of the exceptions apply, and what level of suspicion, if any, is necessary to uphold the search. Unless a meaningful distinction can be made between drone surveillance and more traditional forms of government tracking, existing jurisprudence suggests that a reviewing court would likely uphold drone surveillance conducted with no individualized suspicion when conducted for purposes other than strict law enforcement. The Supreme Court has hesitated from interfering in what they see as the executive s function in protecting the health and safety of the American population. As Chief Justice Rehnquist noted in the Sitz, the Court does not want to transfer from politically accountable officials to the courts the decision as to which among reasonable alternative law enforcement techniques should be employed to deal with serious public danger.... [F]or purposes of Fourth Amendment analysis, the choice among such reasonable alternatives remains with the governmental officials who have a unique understanding of, and a responsibility for, limited public resources, including a finite number of police officers. 121 The Court may defer to law enforcement officials in the drone context also. There are countless instances where the government may seek to utilize drones for health and safety purpose that go beyond mere law enforcement. These may include firefighting, search and rescue missions, traffic safety enforcement, or environmental protection. If, on other hand, surveillance is conducted primarily to enforce the law, a warrant may be required, unless one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement applies. 120 Id. at Mich. Dep t of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, (1990). Congressional Research Service 17 NCRSASL - 341

352 Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations Legislative Proposals in the 112th Congress to Constrain Domestic Use of Drones Although the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution, Congress and the President can provide for greater regulation of drones than the Fourth Amendment requires. Congress has taken such steps over the years to address government surveillance of communications in transit (commonly known as wiretapping), 122 communications in storage such as s, 123 bank records, 124 and health records, 125 among a host of other private information. Several measures have been introduced in the 112th Congress that would restrict the domestic use of drones, and establish arguably greater constraints on their usage than the Fourth Amendment requires. Several bills were prompted by a general concern for potential privacy intrusions by federal and state law enforcement and executive agencies. Others seek to curb specific instances of surveillance, such as that conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2012 (H.R. 5925, S. 3287) Representative Austin Scott and Senator Rand Paul recently introduced similar legislation in the House and Senate, respectively, entitled the Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2012 (H.R. 5925, S. 3287). 126 These bills would require any entity acting under the authority of the federal government to obtain a warrant based upon probable cause before conducting drone surveillance to investigate violations of criminal law or regulations. There are, however, several exceptions to this warrant requirement: (1) to prevent or deter illegal entry of any persons or illegal substances into the United States; (2) when a law enforcement officer possesses reasonable suspicion that under particular circumstances, swift action to prevent imminent danger to life is necessary; or (3) when the Secretary of Homeland Security determines credible intelligence indicates a high risk of a terrorist attack by a specific individual or organization. Both bills create a right to sue for any violation of its prohibitions. However, only S includes an express provision prohibiting unlawfully obtained evidence from being used at trial. Preserving American Privacy Act of 2012 (H.R. 6199) Similarly, Representative Ted Poe s Preserving American Privacy Act of 2012 (H.R. 6199) would restrict the domestic use of drones. 127 It would only permit use of drones by law enforcement pursuant to a warrant and in the investigation of a felony. Any search would be subject to the same limitations and exceptions as apply in the jurisdiction where the search is conducted. There 122 Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, P.L , 87 Stat. 197, 211 (codified at 18 U.S.C ). 123 Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, P.L , 100 Stat (codified at 18 U.S.C ). 124 Right to Financial Privacy Act, P.L , 92 Stat (codified at 12 U.S.C ). 125 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, P.L , 110 Stat H.R. 5925, S. 3287, 112th Cong. 2d Sess. (2012). 127 H.R. 6199, 112th Cong. 2d Sess. (2012). Congressional Research Service 18 NCRSASL - 342

353 Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations is an express exclusionary provision so that evidence obtained in violation of the act would be inadmissible in a federal criminal prosecution. Such evidence would also be excluded from administrative hearings. Additionally, no federal agency may permit a private entity from monitoring an individual. The bill has an exception for searches conducted within 25 miles of the national border. Farmers Privacy Act of 2012 (H.R. 5961) and Other Restrictions on EPA Drone Use Representative Shelley Moore Capito introduced the Famers Privacy Act of 2012, which would prohibit the EPA from conducting aerial surveillance of agricultural lands unless the EPA has consent from the farmer, has provided public notice, or has obtained a certificate of reasonable suspicion from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. 128 During debate on the 2012 Farm Bill, Senators Mike Johanns and Barbara Boxer filed competing amendments regarding EPA unmanned aerial surveillance. Senator Johanns s amendment would have banned the EPA from using aerial surveillance to inspect or record images of farming operations. 129 Senator Boxer s amendment would have permitted the EPA to conduct fly-overs if it was more cost-effective than ground inspections and if state officials were notified of such flights. 130 Neither amendment was ultimately adopted. Alternative Proposals In addition to the above legislation, observers have contemplated a number of other proposals in to restrict or regulate domestic drone surveillance. In instances where the Fourth Amendment does not require a warrant, Congress could potentially require that law enforcement obtain an area warrant. This warrant not need state the exact location of the search, but could describe a general area to be surveilled. Another possible option, applicable in situations where a warrant is not required under the Fourth Amendment (e.g., certain instances of aerial surveillance of public places) would be for Congress to require law enforcement to procure enough evidence to establish probable cause that a crime has been committed or evidence of crime will be found in the place to be searched, but forego the warrant requirement. Additionally, Congress could create a similar cause of action for privacy violations caused by drone surveillance as contained in 18 U.S.C. 2712, which creates a civil remedy for violations of the Wiretap Act, the Stored Communications Act, and certain provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of Congress could also limit the admissibility of evidence in a criminal prosecution to situations where its acquisition was the purpose of the drone search. For instance, if police are permitted to conduct drone surveillance for a search and rescue mission and inadvertently observe a violation 128 H.R. 5961, 112th Cong. 2 (2012). Legislative action was sparked by claims that the EPA was conducting aerial inspections of Midwestern farms with a drone. It was reported that an EPA inspector flew a drone over the farm looking for clean water violations from manure run-off into streams. David A. Fahrenthold, Reining in the Rumors about EPA drones, WASH. POST (June 18, 5:05 P.M.), available at After several weeks, it was discovered that the fly-overs were conducted by manned aircraft not drones, but this revelation did not quell the debate over the use of drones for such purposes. 129 S.Amdt S.Amdt Congressional Research Service 19 NCRSASL - 343

354 Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations of criminal law or regulation, the evidence would not be admissible in a criminal prosecution or administrative proceeding. Conclusion The introduction of drones into American airspace raises many legal and policy questions. For instance, how far can the government go in its attempts to maintain security and ensure that laws are enforced? What level of privacy should Americans expect in an age where technology facilitating the acquisition of personal information expands at a phenomenal pace? Currently, there is a vast body of Fourth Amendment law that governs the circumstances in which law enforcement must obtain a warrant before conducting surveillance. However, the sheer sophistication of drone technology and the sensors they can carry may remove drones from this traditional Fourth Amendment framework. Beyond the courts and the Constitution, what role should Congress and the President play in regulating the introduction of drones inside the United States? As the integration of drones for domestic surveillance operations quickly accelerates, these questions and others will be posed to the American people and their political leaders. Author Contact Information Richard M. Thompson II Legislative Attorney rthompson@crs.loc.gov, Congressional Research Service 20 NCRSASL - 344

355 Pilotless Drones: Background and Considerations for Congress Regarding Unmanned Aircraft Operations in the National Airspace System Bart Elias Specialist in Aviation Policy September 10, 2012 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Congressional Research Service R42718 NCRSASL - 345

356 Unmanned Aircraft Operations in the National Airspace System Summary Growing interest in the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), particularly for homeland security and law enforcement applications, has spurred considerable debate over how to accommodate these unmanned aircraft and keep them safely separated from other air traffic. Additionally, the use of these pilotless aircraft, popularly referred to as drones, for aerial surveillance and law enforcement purposes has raised specific concerns regarding privacy and Fourth Amendment rights and potential intrusiveness. These issues have come to the forefront in policy debate in response to provisions in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (P.L ) that require the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to begin integrating unmanned aircraft into the national airspace system by the end of FY2015. While drones have been used extensively by the military and small radio-controlled model aircraft have been around for more than 50 years, advances in more complex vehicle controls and imaging sensor capabilities are spurring public sector and commercial interest in unmanned aircraft for a variety of purposes, including law enforcement, homeland security, aerial imaging, and scientific research. FAA currently approves public entities (such as federal agencies, public universities, and local police departments) to operate UAVs on a case-by-case basis, but growing interest is making this approach increasingly untenable. Moreover, commercial users are seeking authorization to fly drones, but so far FAA has only allowed test and demonstration flights by manufacturers. FAA faces a number of challenges to address anticipated growth in demand for civilian UAV operations and develop regulations governing the certification and operation of unmanned aircraft systems in domestic airspace. Congress has generally supported efforts to integrate unmanned aircraft into the national airspace system and foster growth in the unmanned aircraft industry. It enacted extensive provisions in P.L that are designed to streamline and accelerate the operation of unmanned aircraft in domestic airspace by both public entities and commercial operators. Notably, that law requires FAA to issue regulations pertaining to the operation of small UAVs (weighing less than 55 pounds) and requires FAA to create and implement a plan to begin the integration of unmanned aircraft into the national airspace system by the end of FY2015. Toward that goal, the act requires FAA to establish six test ranges throughout the United States to study unmanned aircraft integration technical issues. The act establishes an ambitious timeline for FAA to grapple with and resolve a number of complex issues regarding the safety and security of unmanned aircraft operations. Furthermore, aircraft operators have expressed specific concerns that drone operations should not result in airspace restrictions or other measures that could limit accessibility to the national airspace system. In addition to these various challenges, the privacy implications and potential intrusiveness of drone operations have emerged as a significant issue before Congress. Civil liberties and privacy groups have cautioned that voluntary industry measures, including a code of conduct to, among other things, respect privacy, are inadequate to assure that drones will not be misused in ways that could infringe upon the privacy of individuals and intrude upon their daily activities. Moreover, FAA s authority over specific uses of civilian unmanned aircraft appears limited so long as safety and national security are not compromised, raising additional concerns that future drone operations could lead to complaints and lawsuits over noise, intrusiveness, and interference with the use and enjoyment of public or private property. Congressional Research Service NCRSASL - 346

357 Unmanned Aircraft Operations in the National Airspace System Contents Background... 1 Military Roots... 1 From Longtime Hobby to a Burgeoning Civilian Market... 2 Congressional Interest and Related Legislation... 4 UAVs in Vision 100 The Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act... 4 Provisions of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of Current FAA Policy and Oversight... 5 Current Approvals Process... 6 Regulating Small Unmanned Aircraft... 6 Wide Scale Integration of Unmanned Aircraft in Domestic Airspace... 7 Domestic Airspace Integration Issues... 7 Safety Concerns... 7 Sensing and Avoiding Other Air Traffic... 8 Mitigating Risks to Persons and Property on the Ground... 9 Human Factors Considerations Operator Training and Qualification Addressing Potential Security Risks Drone Weapons Intentional Hacking and Signal Jamming Availability and Protection of Radiofrequency Spectrum Responsibility for Security Issues Airspace Restrictions Industry Initiatives Eyes in the Sky: Sensor Payloads Cameras and Electro-Optical Imagers Infrared Sensors Synthetic Aperture Radar...18 Specialized Sensors Concerns over Privacy and Intrusiveness Figures Figure 1. A Variety of Small to Medium-Sized Unmanned Aircraft Designs... 3 Figure 2. An Electro-Optical/Infrared (EO/IR) Sensor Housed in a Pod Mounted on an MQ-9 Predator B/Reaper Drone Operated by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Contacts Author Contact Information Congressional Research Service NCRSASL - 347

358 Unmanned Aircraft Operations in the National Airspace System Background In the early 2000s, military and intelligence use of unmanned aircraft systems (UASs) 1 in Afghanistan and Iraq spurred interest in potential domestic use of these systems. The safe integration of unmanned aircraft in the crowded airspace above the United States poses a number of regulatory challenges for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and raises some unique legal and ethical questions. These issues have come to the forefront following enactment of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (P.L ), which requires FAA to begin integrating unmanned aircraft into the national airspace system by the end of FY2015. Military Roots While much of the policy debate surrounding civilian use of unmanned aircraft is new, unmanned aircraft have been used by the military since the early days of aviation. During World War I, the Navy funded research to develop a prototype flying bomb called the Hewitt-Sperry Automatic Airplane. Building on this concept, the first full-scale powered unmanned aerial vehicles, the Curtiss-Sperry Flying Bomb and the Kettering Aerial Torpedo, nicknamed the Bug, were developed in 1918 as unpiloted bomb delivery platforms. The Bug was designed to fly a pre-set course, then shed its wings delivering an explosive payload that would detonate on impact. It was never used in combat, and further development was halted in the 1920s. 2 As evidenced by these early prototypes, the U.S. military has long had an interest in unmanned aircraft, which evolved into the development of several successful guided missile designs during World War II. The military has used autonomous target drones and remotely piloted vehicles extensively since the 1950s. These vehicles first served as targets for training combat pilots and as decoys in combat arenas, but their roles evolved with advances in sensor technology, allowing them to take on more advanced aerial reconnaissance roles. In the 1980s, spurred by Israeli initiatives, the military developed more sophisticated unmanned systems with extensive ground-based command and control capabilities. Unmanned aircraft were used by U.S. forces for intelligence missions in the Balkans in the late 1990s, and in Afghanistan and Iraq for reconnaissance and surveillance as well as, more recently, for combat missions. 3 In support of military research, development, testing, and training, the military now operates unmanned aircraft extensively in U.S. airspace. The military services work closely with FAA to designate special use airspace for conducting unmanned aircraft operations, typically over military bases or sparsely populated land. 1 Unmanned aircraft systems (UASs) refer to aircraft that fly without onboard pilots along with ground control stations, networks, and personnel needed to operate these aircraft. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) refer to the unmanned aircraft in these systems, which are often referred to as drones in the media. The terms UAVs, unmanned aircraft, and drones are used interchangeably throughout this report. 2 Kettering Aerial Torpedo Bug, Fact Sheet, National Museum of the Air Force: Dayton, Ohio, available at 3 For further information on military and intelligence UASs see CRS Report R42136, U.S. Unmanned Aerial Systems, by Jeremiah Gertler. Congressional Research Service 1 NCRSASL - 348

359 Unmanned Aircraft Operations in the National Airspace System From Longtime Hobby to a Burgeoning Civilian Market Until recently, civilian interest in operating unmanned aircraft in U.S. airspace had largely been limited to long-standing hobbyist use of radio-controlled model aircraft. The Academy of Model Aeronautics, a national organization representing model aviation enthusiasts, was founded in 1936 and claims a membership of more than 150, It serves as the chartering organization for more than 2,400 model airplane clubs across the United States. At present, radio-controlled model aircraft operate under a voluntary standard that generally permits flights only below 400 feet above the surface. These guidelines specify that model aircraft be flown away from populated areas and not in close proximity to full-scale aircraft. They further request coordination with air traffic facilities when planning operations within 3 miles of an airport and suggest that model aircraft be adequately flight tested before being operated in front of spectators. 5 While most radio-controlled model aircraft are powered by small propeller engines and weigh only a few pounds, some are jet-powered scale models weighing over 100 pounds. The distinction between functional model aircraft and small unmanned aerial vehicles is, therefore, largely based on an aircraft s use rather than its size or capabilities: whereas model aircraft are regarded as being used for recreational purposes, UAVs serve public use missions, such as law enforcement and disaster relief, and commercial applications. The prospect of robust growth in use of UAVs had triggered more formal analysis of the process for granting approvals and development of regulations for UAV operations. The challenges associated with safely integrating civilian UAVs into domestic airspace are discussed in detail below (see Domestic Airspace Integration Issues ). Flight missions considered to be dirty, dull, or dangerous are regarded as prime candidates for the use of unmanned aircraft. Examples include aerial surveillance missions for homeland security, border protection, and law enforcement; highway traffic monitoring; forest fire scouting; disaster response; aerial applications of pesticides; pipeline and transmission line inspection; aerial surveying and geospatial imaging; atmospheric and environmental science; wildlife and natural resources management; scientific data collection; and hurricane and severe storm monitoring. Some industry experts foresee eventual use of unmanned aircraft for cargo transport. At this point, however, passenger-carrying UAVs are not on the horizon. Industry analysts anticipate a robust market for unmanned aircraft systems, although the extent to which civilian sales will contribute to this market is highly dependent on how the regulation of civilian drones proceeds. The Teal Group, an aviation and aerospace consulting firm, predicted that, over the next ten years, annual spending on unmanned aircraft systems and sensor payloads will increase by 73% and worldwide spending on unmanned aircraft systems will total $89 billion, with the United States accounting for 62% of the research and development spending and 55% of procurement totals. 6 Similarly, VisionGain, a UK-based business information provider, foresees strong demand for unmanned aircraft payloads and subsystems, as well for UAV flight training and simulation. 7 4 For additional information see the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) website at 5 Federal Aviation Administration, Model Aircraft Operating Standards, Advisory Circular AC 91-57, June 9, 1981, Washington, DC. 6 Teal Group Corporation, Teal Group Predicts Worldwide UAV Market Will Total $89 Billion in Its 2012 UAV Market Profile and Forecast, available at 7 VisionGain, The UAV Payload and Subsystem Market , July 19, 2012, available at (continued...) Congressional Research Service 2 NCRSASL - 349

360 Unmanned Aircraft Operations in the National Airspace System Unmanned Aircraft Designs Unmanned aircraft come in all shapes and sizes. They range in size from bug-sized nano drones to vehicles the size and weight of large business jets. Small UAVs have an upper weight limit of 55 pounds. Typical civilian drones are likely to fall in the range of a few pounds up to that weight limit, while medium-sized unmanned aircraft, like the MQ- 9 Predator 2/Reaper (with a 65-foot wingspan and a maximum takeoff weight of about 10,000 pounds) may be used on more specialized, medium-altitude and high-altitude, long-duration missions like border and maritime patrols and environmental research missions. Unmanned aircraft include fixed-wing airplanes, helicopters, rotorcraft, and even blimps. Unmanned aircraft may also include certain vehicles, referred to as optionally piloted vehicles, that are capable of being flown by a pilot as a conventional aircraft or being operated remotely or autonomously depending on mission conditions, needs, and requirements. Figure 1 provides a montage of various unmanned systems illustrating a range of different vehicle sizes and designs including (clockwise from top left) the hand-launched AeroVironment RQ-20 Puma; an unmanned version of the Kaman K-MAX external load helicopter operated by the U.S. Marine Corps; the Honeywell RQ-16 Tarantula T-Hawk; the AAI RQ-2 Pioneer; and the Altair variant of the General Atomics MQ-9 Predator 2/Reaper. Figure 1. A Variety of Small to Medium-Sized Unmanned Aircraft Designs Sources: Clockwise from top left, U.S. Army, U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Army, U.S. Army, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). (...continued) VisionGain, The UAV Flight Training & Simulation Market , May 17, 2012, available at The-UAV-Flight-Training-Simulation-Market Congressional Research Service 3 NCRSASL - 350

361 Unmanned Aircraft Operations in the National Airspace System While a substantial portion of this market will be accounted for by the defense sector, manufacturers are increasingly looking toward the civilian sector, fearing that military sales may stagnate as operations in Afghanistan are scaled back and U.S. defense budgets grow tighter. However, some forecasters have concluded that growth in the civilian market is unlikely until a regulatory framework allowing routine UAS operations is established. 8 FAA anticipates that once such regulations are put in place, roughly 10,000 active civilian UASs will commence operations within the first five years. 9 It is important to distinguish public-use missions from purely civilian activities involving UAVs, although certain commercial operations, such as utility line inspection, may serve a public benefit. The distinction matters because aircraft owned or leased by federal and state agencies, counties, and municipalities, are regulated differently from civil aircraft operated by private individuals and corporations. 10 Although the regulatory distinctions are complex, in general, FAA oversight and authority over public-use aircraft are more limited. For this reason, some publicsector entities, particularly homeland security and law enforcement agencies and public universities, are already making limited use of UAVs while the commercial market awaits FAA regulatory action. Congressional Interest and Related Legislation Congress has generally been supportive of efforts to integrate unmanned aircraft into the national airspace system and foster growth in the unmanned aircraft industry. Through oversight and legislation, it has pushed FAA to accelerate its regulatory processes regarding the certification and operation of unmanned aircraft. UAVs in Vision 100 The Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act In 2003, Congress included language in Vision 100 The Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (P.L ) specifying that the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen), which FAA is developing to handle air traffic control, shall accommodate a wide range of aircraft operations, including airlines, air taxis, helicopters, general aviation, and unmanned aerial vehicles. 11 That language set the stage for ongoing policy and technical consideration of how to best accommodate unmanned aircraft in the future airspace system. While unmanned aircraft were only briefly mentioned in the act, the specific language requiring that they be accommodated in the design of NextGen served as an important step toward recognizing that drones would likely play a significant role in the aviation system of the future. Nearly a decade later, unmanned aircraft have evolved considerably, and the importance of 8 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Use in the National Airspace System and the Role of the Department of Homeland Security, Statement of Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D., Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, Before the Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Management, Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives, July 19, 2012, GAO T. 9 Federal Aviation Administration, FAA Aerospace Forecasts FY , p U.S.C specifies the qualifications for public aircraft status. 11 P.L , Section 709c(6), italics added. Congressional Research Service 4 NCRSASL - 351

362 Unmanned Aircraft Operations in the National Airspace System considering them in aviation regulation and the design and operation of the national airspace system has become a major policy and technical consideration. Provisions of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 During debate over the most recent FAA reauthorization, the integration of unmanned aircraft in national airspace was an issue of considerable interest. The resulting legislation, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (P.L ) contained extensive provisions designed to promote and facilitate the use of civilian unmanned aircraft. These included mandates for development of an integration plan that is to commence by the end of FY2015, if not sooner, along with a five-year roadmap for achieving integration objectives; selection of six test sites to study UAV integration into the national airspace system; designation of certain permanent areas in the Arctic where small unmanned aircraft may operate 24 hours per day for commercial and research purposes, including flights conducted beyond line-of-sight; a simplified process for issuing authorizations for entities seeking to operate public UASs in the national airspace system; a collaborative process to incrementally expand airspace access as technology matures and safety data and analysis become available, and to facilitate public agency access to UAS test ranges; a requirement to develop and implement operational and certification requirements for public UASs by December 31, 2015; and an exemption from rules and regulations pertaining to the operation of unmanned aircraft for model aircraft weighing 55 pounds or less that are flown within visual line-of-sight strictly for hobby or recreation. Current FAA Policy and Oversight The provisions in P.L reflect a general view that FAA s slow progress to date on addressing regulatory requirements for unmanned aircraft may be a barrier to civilian drone operations. While FAA has been studying unmanned aircraft operations for almost a decade, it continues to address requests to operate unmanned aircraft on a case-by-case basis. This approach is becoming increasingly untenable as growing numbers of public and commercial entities seek authorization to operate unmanned aircraft in domestic airspace. On February 13, 2007, FAA issued a notice of policy declaring that no person may operate a UAS in the National Airspace System without specific authority. 12 This policy applies to both public and private unmanned aircraft. FAA currently has two methods for granting authority to operate unmanned aircraft, depending on whether the operator is a public or a private entity. 12 Federal Aviation Administration, Unmanned Aircraft Operations in the National Airspace System, Federal Register, 72(39), February 13, 2007, Congressional Research Service 5 NCRSASL - 352

363 Unmanned Aircraft Operations in the National Airspace System Current Approvals Process Unmanned aircraft operated by the military or other federal, state, or local agencies must obtain a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) from FAA. Since 2006, FAA has issued COAs to more than 100 unique public entities throughout the United States, ranging from local fire departments to research laboratories. Since the COAs have narrow scopes and durations, entities must obtain new authorizations every few months. In 2009, FAA issued 146 such COAs. In 2010, the number of COAs issued grew to Although FAA has streamlined its approval process, as required by P.L , growing interest in operating unmanned aircraft from public entities is expected to place strains on the current case-by-case approach to authorization. Additionally, in much the same manner as manned aircraft developers and builders must obtain FAA certification to test fly their aircraft, a number of drone developers have received special airworthiness certificates in the experimental category. Special airworthiness certificates, which offer the only legal route for private entities to operate unmanned aircraft for commercial purposes, have been issued on a limited basis for flight tests, demonstrations, and training. FAA has raised concerns that other civilian users are operating commercial UAVs under the voluntary guidelines issued in the early 1980s that were intended to apply only to recreational users of model aircraft. As previously described, these guidelines advise such users to maintain altitudes lower than 400 feet above the ground, select sites away from populated and noisesensitive areas, give right of way to full-scale aircraft, and advise airport operators and air traffic facilities if operating within 3 miles of an airport. The FAA statement of policy clarifies that these general guidelines alone are not sufficient for commercial operators of unmanned aircraft, regardless of the size of such aircraft. The FAA did, however, indicate that it has undertaken a safety review to determine whether certain small, slow-moving unmanned aircraft could be safely operated under a similar set of guidelines without requiring special airworthiness certification. Regulating Small Unmanned Aircraft Developers of small-scale unmanned aircraft are concerned that FAA has been moving too slowly on measures to safely accommodate these types of aircraft. Since 2007, industry has been pushing for separate regulations for ultralight, low-speed, short-life UASs that will not be flying over populated areas or in controlled airspace, arguing that a one-size-fits-all approach to regulation would not likely be effective given the wide range of systems being considered for civilian use. 14 Other than streamlining the case-by-case approvals process, FAA has not taken any formal action addressing the regulation of civilian small unmanned aircraft. After several delays, FAA plans to release a proposed rule regarding the certification and operation of small unmanned aircraft systems (suas) in October 2012, as a step toward meeting the August 2014 statutory deadline for issuance of a final rule. Additionally, P.L directed FAA to assess whether certain unmanned aircraft operations do not pose a safety hazard or a threat to national security and can therefore safely be allowed. Actions to address this mandate are currently in progress. 13 Federal Aviation Administration, Fact Sheet: Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), Updated July 2011, available at 14 David Hughes, Civil Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Could Grow Rapidly, Aviation Week and Space Technology, February 12, 2007, p. 49. Congressional Research Service 6 NCRSASL - 353

364 Unmanned Aircraft Operations in the National Airspace System Wide Scale Integration of Unmanned Aircraft in Domestic Airspace UAV manufacturers and users are seeking a regulatory structure for the certification of UAV systems and approval for operation in domestic airspace. Ideally, operators of approved systems want the ability to file and fly, meaning that they would be granted vehicle certification with broad operating authority akin to current manned aircraft certification standards. Such regulation would potentially allow unmanned aircraft operators to file routine flight plans, or in some cases simply carry out flight operations without any specific notification requirements, much as manned aircraft do. 15 While FAA s approach to address the mandates set forth in P.L regarding unmanned aircraft integration into the national airspace system is yet to be defined, it is most likely that FAA regulation and oversight of UAVs will adopt an evolving, risk-based approach toward this end goal of seamless integration. As a first step, P.L mandated that FAA identify six test sites to specifically test concepts and technologies for integrated unmanned aircraft operations. FAA held public meetings and webinars and solicited public comments on the selection of test sites in March 2012, but has not yet gone through a formal source selection process or announced further details regarding test site selection, even though it was mandated to identify the sites by the summer of 2012 and have at least one site operational by February Under P.L , FAA is also required to develop a comprehensive plan to safely accelerate integration of civilian unmanned aircraft into the national airspace system as soon as practical but not later than September Meeting this mandate will require extensive research and regulatory action over the next three years. Domestic Airspace Integration Issues Key challenges to drone integration in domestic airspace include safety concerns, potential security risks, and concerns regarding airspace restrictions and possible disruptions to manned flight operations. Safety Concerns Threshold criteria for integrated unmanned aircraft operations are that UAVs do not pose undue risk other aircraft or compromise safety to persons or property on the ground. 16 To meet safety objectives, UASs will require technology and standard procedures for sensing and avoiding other air traffic under all possible scenarios, including lost communications. System reliability and human factors are important systems design considerations, as are training and qualification standards for drone pilots, unmanned aircraft systems operators, and other safety-critical personnel Katherine McIntire Peters and Beth Dickey, Droning On, Government Executive, October 15, 2004, pp Federal Aviation Administration, Fact Sheet: Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), Updated July 2011, available at 17 Drone pilots refers to ground personnel responsible for direct flight control of the unmanned vehicle whereas the term systems operators refers to personnel responsible for operating sensor payloads or other aircraft systems, such as fuel systems, that do not involve direct manipulation of flight controls or flight guidance systems. Other safety critical (continued...) Congressional Research Service 7 NCRSASL - 354

365 Unmanned Aircraft Operations in the National Airspace System Sensing and Avoiding Other Air Traffic Domestic airspace accommodates more than 70,000 flights per day 18 at a variety of altitudes, including low- and high-altitude military training flights, high-altitude air carrier and business jet flights, medium-altitude commuter and general aviation flights, and low-altitude recreational and sightseeing flights and helicopter operations. The risk of collision between these users and unmanned aircraft must be adequately mitigated before unmanned aircraft can routinely utilize the national airspace system. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that no suitable technology is currently available to provide unmanned aircraft, particularly small UAVs, with the detect, sense, and avoid requirements needed to safely operate within the national airspace system. GAO noted that small unmanned aircraft pose a particular challenge because they operate at low altitudes. Many other aircraft operating at these altitudes do not use electronic transponders to broadcast their position and altitude, and in any case many small UAVs lack the ability to receive transponder signals. The needed equipment is simply too large and heavy to install on many small UAVs. 19 Currently, these limitations substantially restrict UAV operations to line-of-sight scenarios, where operators on the ground or spotters in chase planes can provide the necessary capabilities to detect and avoid other air traffic. FAA is currently evaluating options for routinely allowing small unmanned aircraft to use line-of-sight as an acceptable means to detect and avoid manned aircraft under a regulatory regime for small UAVs. For more sophisticated medium and large-sized UAVs seeking approval for operations beyond line of sight, technology advancements are needed to assure safety in an environment shared with manned flights. Remote sensing capabilities, including onboard cameras, airborne radars, and equipment to interrogate aircraft transponder signals (similar to the traffic collision avoidance systems on jetliners) can combine to provide operators with robust air traffic information. An emerging technology, Automated Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) will be required on manned aircraft by 2020 and will serve as the principal means for aircraft tracking under NextGen. Using ADS-B, aircraft will broadcast precise global positioning system (GPS) location information to air traffic controllers and other air traffic, potentially including unmanned aircraft. While ADS-B may provide unmanned aircraft operators with the capability to gather precise position and flight path information for nearby air traffic in the future, backup systems will likely be needed because ADS-B transmission and reception may not be guaranteed all the time. (...continued) personnel may include maintenance personnel and equipment technicians that service the air vehicle, the ground station or command and control linkages between the vehicle and the ground station. 18 Based on 2010 total combined aircraft operations at towered airports reported in Federal Aviation Administration, FAA Aerospace Forecasts FY This does not include activity at non-towered airports and, therefore, understates the total number of daily flights, for which there is no definitive count. 19 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Use in the National Airspace System and the Role of the Department of Homeland Security, Statement of Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D., Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, Before the Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Management, Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives, July 19, 2012, GAO T. Congressional Research Service 8 NCRSASL - 355

366 Unmanned Aircraft Operations in the National Airspace System FAA has not specifically approved any technology or suite of technologies as being sufficient to provide acceptable sense and avoid capabilities. 20 Part of the challenge is that existing technologies do not assure avoidance capabilities under all operational conditions, including autonomous UAV operations or in situations when UAVs lose their command guidance links with ground control facilities. Standardized procedures for responding when UAV guidance has been lost are currently lacking, but will be needed to ensure that air traffic controllers and airspace managers can redirect nearby traffic and mitigate collision risks. No single technology is likely to address the complex sense and avoid requirements that are critical for unmanned aircraft integration. FAA has been working closely with RTCA, Inc., which functions as a federal advisory committee on aviation technologies, to develop consensus standards regarding minimum aviation system performance standards for sense and avoid technologies as well as for command, control, and communications systems for unmanned aircraft systems. 21 RTCA has been performing this work under its standards committee on unmanned aircraft systems (SC-203), which is scheduled to complete its work on these issues by December 2013 and intends to publish recommended standards soon thereafter. These standards, along with findings from unmanned aircraft integration testing, will likely form the basis of FAA regulations and guidance regarding sense and avoid technologies and UAV operating procedures. Mitigating Risks to Persons and Property on the Ground In addition to risks to other air traffic, unmanned aircraft operations may pose a risk to persons and property on the ground. Thus far, unmanned aircraft testing and operational use, such as for military testing and training and for border and maritime patrol operations, have been conducted largely over sparsely populated areas. In the future, however, law enforcement and commercial users are expected to undertake flights over densely populated areas, a prospect which raises specific concerns over safety procedures. For example, to minimize the likelihood of a crash when communications, command, and control linkages between the vehicle and the ground control station are disrupted, UAVs may need the ability to autonomously return to base. Drone crashes, such as the 2006 crash of an MQ-9 Predator B drone operated by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) near Nogales, NM, and the more recent crash of a Navy RQ-4A Global Hawk near Salisbury, MD in June, 2012, have raised public concern over the safety of unmanned aircraft operations. While drone safety has improved considerably over the past decade, the accident rate for unmanned aircraft is still far above that of manned aircraft, although direct comparisons are difficult, given that most drone operations examined have involved riskier flying during development and testing and in war and conflict zones. 22 The risk posed to persons and property on the ground is a function of both crash likelihood and the potential consequences in terms of loss of life, injury, or property damage. While smaller 20 Sense and avoid refers to technologies and capabilities allowing unmanned aircraft to reliably detect other air traffic and maneuver away from such traffic in a manner that adequately mitigates collision risks. 21 RTCA was organized in 1935 as the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics. Today it operates as a private, not-for-profit corporation. Its recommendations are used by FAA as a basis for policy, program, and regulatory decisions. 22 Roland E. Weibel and R. John Hansman, Safety Considerations for Operation of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in the National Airspace System, MIT International Center for Air Transportation, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, March 2005, Report No. ICAT Congressional Research Service 9 NCRSASL - 356

367 Unmanned Aircraft Operations in the National Airspace System UAVs may be expected to crash more frequently, the potential for catastrophic consequences is less given that these vehicles do not weigh enough or carry enough fuel to cause major damage on the ground. On the other hand, larger UAVs, like the MQ-9 Reaper or the RQ-4 Global Hawk, can potentially cause as much damage as a mid- to large-sized corporate jet. However, safety considerations in the design and operation of these more complex systems may reduce the likelihood of a crash. Additional procedures that can be incorporated into safety regulations for unmanned aircraft systems may further mitigate flight risks. These procedures may include formal risk assessments for systems certification and mission planning; development of ground impact models and mitigation plans to reduce risks to persons and property on the ground; 23 and structured training and certification requirements for unmanned aircraft pilots, systems operators, and other safety critical personnel. Human Factors Considerations The issue of training and certification requirements for unmanned aircraft systems personnel raises a much broader issue regarding the role of humans in these systems. Indeed, the term unmanned aircraft system (UAS) is a misnomer: while the aircraft themselves may be unmanned, the systems needed to operate them safely depend extensively on human interaction. Although drones operate without a pilot on board, human performance is a major consideration in setting policy for the integration of unmanned aircraft systems in domestic airspace. Key human factors to be considered include operator interfaces and controls and the training and qualifications of drone pilots, systems operators, and other safety critical personnel. The previously mentioned 2006 crash of a UAV operated by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) illustrates the importance of these human factors considerations. On April 25, 2006, a Predator B (MQ-9) drone crashed in a remote area along the U.S.-Mexico border near Nogales, AZ following a loss of engine power. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that the probable cause of the mishap was the drone pilot s failure to follow appropriate procedures when switching to an alternate control console in the ground control station following a computer malfunction. 24 The error resulted in the pilot inadvertently cutting off the vehicle s fuel supply. CBP had only been operating the Predator B aircraft since September 2005, eight months prior to the mishap. NTSB concluded that during this time CBP was providing a minimal amount of operational oversight of its UAS program and cited its inadequate surveillance of the program as a contributing factor in the crash. The NTSB investigation revealed that, despite repeated computer malfunctions, neither CBP nor its contractors had a program in place to ensure that maintenance tasks were performed correctly or that corrective measures were applied. The NTSB investigation also found that while the mishap pilot had only 27 hours of flight time with the Predator B model, and had only been given 23 Ibid. 24 National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB Identification: CHI06MA121, Aviation Accident Database & Synopses, Probable Cause Approval Date: October 31, Available at brief.aspx?ev_id= x00531&key=1. Congressional Research Service 10 NCRSASL - 357

368 Unmanned Aircraft Operations in the National Airspace System verbal approval to fly the vehicle accompanied by an instructor pilot, the instructor pilot was not present in the ground control station when the error occurred. NTSB further noted that the verbal approval was not standard practice for CBP. The incident illustrates that, despite the lack of an onboard pilot, human performance considerations are critical in the design of unmanned aircraft systems. The failure that led to the crash was preventable had the system been designed and operated with certain safeguards in place to compensate for human fallibility. Greater attention to human factors considerations in the design and operation of unmanned aircraft systems and in the development of training programs and operational procedures could improve safety and facilitate the integration of unmanned aircraft in the national airspace system. Operator Training and Qualification One particularly important human factors consideration for regulators is a determination regarding training standards and minimum qualification requirements for personnel involved in flight operations. The appropriate training and qualifications may depend in part on the size of the aircraft and the complexity of the system, as a one size fits all approach may be inappropriate given the diversity among vehicles, systems, and operational missions. Currently the U.S. Air Force requires its Predator/Reaper and Global Hawk pilots to be pilot-rated military officers. 25 The other military services do not require drones to be operated by rated pilots, but do require specialized training. It is uncertain how these different approaches may serve as a basis for FAA to develop training requirements and qualification standards for civilian UAV pilots and operators, as military approaches vary considerably and are tailored to specific systems and missions. One approach would be for FAA to develop basic training and certification standards for operators of small UAVs, while requiring more elaborate training and certification requirements for personnel seeking to operate or maintain large, complex unmanned aircraft systems. The extent to which requirements for UAV personnel may overlap with requirements for piloting or maintaining manned aircraft remains uncertain but could have significant implications for the industry s development. One perceived advantage of unmanned aircraft over manned aircraft is lower operating costs, and mandating that unmanned systems have highly trained pilots and operators with specialized certifications could reduce that potential cost advantage. Another issue may involve medical certification. Medical conditions or poor eyesight preclude some individuals from obtaining pilot certification, and the rigors of the flight environment demand stringent medical requirements. Given the significant differences in the work environment and the potential consequences of medical problems in an aircraft compared to inside a ground control station, FAA may choose to relax some medical requirements to allow certain individuals that would otherwise not be medically fit to fly to operate unmanned aircraft. 25 See CRS Report R42136, U.S. Unmanned Aerial Systems, by Jeremiah Gertler. Congressional Research Service 11 NCRSASL - 358

369 Unmanned Aircraft Operations in the National Airspace System Addressing Potential Security Risks In addition to safety risks, the operation of civilian unmanned aircraft in domestic airspace raises potential security risks, including the possibility that terrorists could use a drone to carry out an attack against a ground target. It is also possible that drones themselves could be targeted by terrorists or cybercriminals seeking to tap into sensor data transmissions or to cause mayhem by hacking or jamming command and control signals. Drone Weapons Terrorists could potentially use drones to carry out small-scale attacks using explosives, or as platforms for chemical, biological, or radiological attacks. In September 2011, the FBI arrested Rezwan Ferdaus, a U.S. citizen from Ashland, MA, charging him in a terrorist plot to attack the Pentagon and the Capitol using large model aircraft packed with high explosives. While the small payload of the model aircraft may have limited the lethality of the explosions, Ferdaus planned to recruit others to use assault rifles to target people fleeing the Pentagon after the drone attack. 26 In July 2012, Ferdaus pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to terrorists and attempting to damage and destroy federal buildings by means of an explosive in a plea agreement under which additional charges were dropped. The incident has raised specific concerns about potential terrorist attacks using unmanned aircraft, although the payload capacities of small UAVs would limit the damage these attacks could inflict using only conventional explosives. Intentional Hacking and Signal Jamming Additionally, unmanned aircraft command and control links could potentially be intentionally jammed or hacked resulting in a loss or hostile takeover of control. For example, Todd Humphreys, an assistant professor at the University of Texas at Austin, demonstrated a remote hijacking of an unmanned aircraft by GPS guidance signals. In congressional testimony, he warned that advances in software-defined radio and the availability of GPS signal simulators may provide average hackers with the capability to interfere with unmanned aircraft operations. 27 Humphreys recommended that non-recreational civilian unmanned aircraft weighing more than 18 pounds be required to have spoof-resistant navigation systems. More broadly, he recommended that GPS-based timing and navigation systems used in national critical infrastructure also be required to be spoof-resistant. He noted that while [t]here is no quick, easy, and cheap fix for the civil GPS spoofing problem reasonable, cost-effective spoofing defenses exist which, if implemented, will make successful spoofing much harder. 28 As a long-range solution, he further recommended that the Department of Homeland Security commit to funding the development and implementation of methods for performing cryptographic authentication of GPS signals, or at least for the augmented GPS signals used for civil aviation. 26 Milton J. Valencia, Ashland Man Faces Terrorism Charges, Boston Globe, September 29, Todd Humphreys, Statement on the Vulnerability of Civil Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Other Systems to Civil GPS Spoofing, Submitted to the Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Management of the House Committee on Homeland Security, July 19, Ibid. In this context, spoofing refers to transmitting false navigation signals that could cause a drone or aircraft to veer off course. Congressional Research Service 12 NCRSASL - 359

370 Unmanned Aircraft Operations in the National Airspace System Additionally, GAO noted that low cost devices that jam GPS signals are prevalent. 29 However, it concluded that the issue could be mitigated by using additional navigation systems that do not rely on GPS, and/or by encrypting communications and telemetry signals. Availability and Protection of Radiofrequency Spectrum GAO also noted that the lack of dedicated radiofrequency spectrum for UAS operations raises the risk of lost communications links due to either unintentional or intentional signal interference. 30 Issues regarding dedicated radiofrequency spectrum for unmanned aircraft, which sometimes involve satellite control links, are typically addressed in an international forum to assure global harmonization. The appropriate forum for such determinations is International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the United Nations agency responsible for global information and communications technologies. In December 2009, ITU issued guidance on spectrum requirements for safe operation of unmanned aircraft in non-segregated or integrated airspace. It concluded that unmanned aircraft operations will require radiofrequency spectrum for air traffic control, vehicle command and control, and sense and avoid capabilities. 31 In November 2011, it published specific guidance on the technical feasibility and advantages and disadvantages of several candidate frequency bands for beyond line of sight communications, command, and control for unmanned aircraft systems. 32 It did not formally consider or propose regulatory methods for how these frequency bands might be allocated, which would be left up to individual regulatory authorities such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the United States. FCC has addressed radiofrequency licensing for UAVs on a case-by-case basis, much as FAA has done for certifying drone flight operations. With continued demand for spectrum from mobile broadband providers, securing dedicated radiofrequency spectrum for unmanned aircraft operations is likely to be an ongoing challenge. Moreover, the protection of radiofrequency signals to prevent potential hacking and spoofing through encryption and other methods has not yet been adequately addressed and remains a threat to the security of unmanned aircraft systems operations. 29 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Use in the National Airspace System and the Role of the Department of Homeland Security, Statement of Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D., Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, Before the Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Management, Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives, July 19, 2012, GAO T. 30 Ibid. 31 International Telecommunication Union, ITU-R Radiocommunication Sector of ITU, Characteristics of Unmanned Aircraft Systems and Spectrum Requirements to Support Their Safe Operation in Non-Segregated Airspace, Report ITU-R M. 2171, December, 2009, Geneva, Switzerland. 32 International Telecommunication Union, ITU-R Radiocommunication Sector of ITU, Frequency Sharing Between Unmanned Aircraft Systems for Beyond Line of Sight Control and Non-Payload Communications Links and Other Existing and Planned Services in the Frequency Bands GHz, GHz, GHz and GHz, Report ITU-R M. 2230, November, 2011, Geneva, Switzerland. Congressional Research Service 13 NCRSASL - 360

371 Unmanned Aircraft Operations in the National Airspace System Responsibility for Security Issues Under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA, P.L ), responsibility for aviation security was transferred from FAA to the newly formed Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in TSA has not specifically addressed the potential security concerns arising from the operation of drones in domestic airspace. With regard to matters involving hacking and signal jamming, responsibility for the regulation and oversight of system security is far more complex. While TSA maintains responsibility for airspace security, FAA has regulatory authority over the certification of air vehicles. FAA has not issued certification standards for unmanned aircraft and systems, but future FAA standards may include hardware and software security and reliability assurance requirements. FAA has worked closely with RTCA and the European Organization for Civil Aviation Equipment (EUROCAE) to define software or information assurance criteria for aircraft systems, and RTCA has released specific guidance on software considerations for airborne systems and equipment. FAA has issued advisory information for aircraft and aircraft equipment manufacturers regarding systems security and software assurance. This information indicates that the RTCA document is only one guideline manufacturers may utilize in applying systems engineering principles to ensure that aircraft component hardware and software are reliable and robust against hacking, signal interference, and other threats. 33 Additionally, the National Information Assurance Partnership (NIAP), a partnership between the National Security Agency (NSA) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has established common criteria for information technology systems evaluation. Systems meeting the highest levels in the testing process are regarded as having high robustness, meaning that they have stringent failure protections and rigorous security measures. Some avionics systems for airliners are now being tested using these common criteria methods, although such testing is not currently required. As the issue of unmanned aircraft systems certification is addressed, specific requirements for hardware and software security could be put in place. Additionally or alternatively, drone manufacturers may voluntarily apply various systems engineering and information assurance methods, such as those specified in the RTCA guidance or in the NIAP common criteria methodology, to protect systems against various information security threats. As with many aspects of unmanned systems, a one size fits all approach may not be suitable, and FAA and TSA may choose to adopt a risk-based approach in addressing security matters related to unmanned aircraft operations. Under a risk-based approach, larger, more complex unmanned aircraft may be required to adopt more specific systems security and software and information assurance requirements, while more basic operational security procedures may suffice for small UAVs weighing less than 55 pounds, for example. In general, a comprehensive approach to security issues pertaining to unmanned aircraft systems operations will likely require close coordination between TSA, FAA, FCC, manufacturers, and operators to address security issues pertaining to systems hardware and software, radiofrequency communications, and flight operations. 33 Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular B Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics, Inc. Document RTCA/DO-178B, January 11, Congressional Research Service 14 NCRSASL - 361

372 Unmanned Aircraft Operations in the National Airspace System Airspace Restrictions Besides safety and security, the potential impact of drone operations on airspace accessibility for other aircraft has been raised as a specific concern, particularly among operators of smaller general aviation aircraft. One significant difference between military unmanned aircraft and unmanned aircraft operated by other public agencies or by civilian users is that the military, for many years, has negotiated with FAA to set aside airspace designated for military training, testing, and other purposes. Military airspace consists of military operations areas, military training routes, test ranges, and other restricted or prohibited airspace. Military operations areas and training routes are typically located in remote areas. While not set aside exclusively for military use, these areas and routes are charted and documented, allowing other airspace users, especially smaller general aviation aircraft, to be alert for military flight operations, including operations involving unmanned aircraft. The military has also worked with FAA to set aside specific restricted and prohibited airspace (e.g., above test sites and bombing ranges) to accommodate operations that pose greater risks to other air traffic. This airspace is charted and documented to allow pilots to avoid these areas when restrictions designating them as off limits to non-military users are in effect. Airspace restrictions can serve as an effective tool for mitigating risks to civilian air traffic. However, their use concerns some airspace users because they pose inconveniences and sometimes raise additional safety issues. With additional restrictions, civilian pilots may be forced to fly more circuitous routes, leaving pilots with fewer options to avoid bad weather or plan for fuel stops. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), which represents more than 400,000 general aviation pilots and aviation enthusiasts across the United States, has been particularly critical of the use of restricted airspace designations to separate unmanned aircraft operations from other air traffic. AOPA has asserted that unmanned aircraft operations should not have a negative impact on general aviation operations and should not require special airspace designations, such as restricted airspace, for their operation. 34 It, however, generally supports the integration of unmanned aircraft so long as they do no harm to current manned operations. 35 AOPA has been particularly critical of FAA s issuance of temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) to separate CBP drone operations for border surveillance from other air traffic. Testifying before the House Subcommittee on Aviation at a March 2006 hearing, AOPA Executive Vice President for Government Affairs Andrew Cebula stated that AOPA believes that the use of temporary largescale flight restrictions for yearlong UAV operations is not appropriate and the FAA needs to fully explore the alternatives available to allow CBP (or any other agency for that matter) to secure our borders without impacting the aviation community Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, Regulatory Brief Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Updated January 31, 2008, Frederick, MD, available at 35 Benet J. Wilson, Integrating Manned, Unmanned Vehicles in Airspace System, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, Frederick, MD, available at 36 Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, Statement of Andrew V. Cebula, Executive Vice President, Government Affairs Concerning Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in the National Airspace System, Before the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Aviation Subcommittee, U.S. House of Representatives, March 29, Congressional Research Service 15 NCRSASL - 362

373 Unmanned Aircraft Operations in the National Airspace System Industry Initiatives The unmanned aircraft industry, collectively consisting of unmanned aircraft systems and system component manufacturers and system operators, has been cognizant of concerns regarding the operation of unmanned aircraft for civilian uses in domestic airspace. Collectively, the views of drone developers and operators worldwide are represented by the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI). AVUSI has addressed many of the public concerns surrounding UAV operations in a voluntary industry code of conduct issued in July 2012, which is summarized in the text box below. Voluntary Industry Code of Conduct for Drone Operations In July 2012, the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) issued a voluntary industry code of conduct for the operation of unmanned aircraft systems. The code of conduct addresses concerns raised by the public and regulators regarding safety, professionalism, and respect. With regard to safety, operators adopting the code commit to operating in a manner that will not present undue risk to persons or property on the surface or in the air; ensuring that vehicles are piloted by competent and properly trained individuals; and ensuring that flights are conducted only after thorough risk assessments, including consideration of weather conditions, potential failures and possible consequences, crew fitness for flight operations, airspace issues, applicable aviation regulations, frequency spectrum requirements, and the reliability, performance, and airworthiness of the aircraft. With regard to professionalism, adopters of the code commit to complying with all federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, covenants, and restrictions pertaining to unmanned aircraft operations; operating systems as responsible members of the aviation community; being responsive to public needs; cooperating fully with federal, state, and local authorities in response to emergency deployments, mishap investigations, and media relations; and establishing contingency plans for all anticipated non-normal events and sharing these plans openly with all appropriate authorities. Finally, with regard to respect, operators adopting the code commit to respecting the rights of other airspace users; respecting the privacy of individuals; respecting the concerns of the public regarding unmanned aircraft operations; and supporting improved public awareness and education regarding the operation of unmanned aircraft. Source: Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), Unmanned Aircraft System Operations Industry Code of Conduct, Arlington, VA. Congressional Research Service 16 NCRSASL - 363

374 Unmanned Aircraft Operations in the National Airspace System Eyes in the Sky: Sensor Payloads A central issue surrounding the use of unmanned aircraft is the airborne sensors, particularly imaging sensors, that are mounted to the underbellies of these vehicles to gather data and collect images of the earth below. While these sensors may be utilized for a variety of beneficial applications, they have also raised considerable concerns regarding their potential intrusiveness, despite the aforementioned industry commitments to respect the privacy of individuals (see Concerns over Privacy and Intrusiveness below). Cameras and Electro-Optical Imagers Typical cameras and sensors placed on unmanned aircraft can collect data across a broad range of the electromagnetic spectrum, both within and beyond the range of human vision. They can provide aerial surveillance capabilities and spectral data under a wide range of lighting and atmospheric conditions. In many cases, small UAVs used in surveillance applications are simply equipped with commercial, off-the-shelf digital still photograph or video cameras. Usually, for aerial work, high-end digital cameras with image stabilization are needed to provide detailed resolution from a distance and avoid motion blur from the movement and vibration of the aircraft and the camera platform. UAVs used for detailed earth imaging are fitted with more advanced high resolution cameras. These cameras may have advanced optical features, including very large digital imaging arrays, large zoom lenses, and advanced image stabilization capabilities, allowing them to take highly detailed aerial photographs. Captured videos and images may be transmitted for further processing or, in some cases, may be processed onboard by computer vision and video analytic software. Analytics may include tools such as scene motion detection and analysis, object detection capabilities, license plate readers, and, possibly in some cases, facial recognition software. Drones may also be equipped with electro-optical sensors that are specifically designed for aerial operations. With regard to their imaging capabilities, electro-optical imagers are similar to highend consumer digital cameras and typically take either still or video images within the visual electromagnetic spectrum, similar to human visual capabilities. Thus these sensors, like cameras, provide eyes in the sky when operated in good daylight and twilight visual conditions, when not obscured by clouds or fog. Infrared Sensors Cameras and electro-optical sensors cannot provide quality images during nighttime operations or when operating in low visibility, such as in clouds or in fog. Therefore, to augment electro-optical imaging capabilities and allow for imaging under a broader range of light conditions, sensor platforms often also include two-dimensional infrared (IR) imaging arrays. Since the longer wavelengths in the IR bands are not absorbed or attenuated by clouds or fog and are emitted by warm objects at night, IR sensors are capable of providing images beyond the capabilities or normal human sight. In the far infrared spectrum, passive millimeter wave sensors provide thermal imaging capabilities particularly for night vision and thermal imaging applications. The thermal sensing properties of IR sensors make them well suited for law enforcement and border security applications, for example, for providing eyes in the sky for foot pursuits. IR sensors are Congressional Research Service 17 NCRSASL - 364

375 Unmanned Aircraft Operations in the National Airspace System also important for command and control of UAVs operated beyond line of sight, giving operators improved situational awareness at night and in poor visibility. Electro-optical and infrared sensors, collectively known as EO/IR sensors, are often housed together in a turret pod with gyro-stabilized gimbals that allow the sensors to move, either at the direction of a preprogrammed mission plan or from commands issued by a sensor operator remotely controlling the device (see Figure 2). Figure 2. An Electro-Optical/Infrared (EO/IR) Sensor Housed in a Pod Mounted on an MQ-9 Predator B/Reaper Drone Operated by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Source: Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Synthetic Aperture Radar In addition to passive EO/IR sensors, aircraft are sometimes fitted with active synthetic aperture radar (SAR) antennas, which measure reflections of emitted microwaves to generate sensor imagery. Real time SAR imagery can penetrate through rain, fog, smoke and dust, providing surveillance capabilities in poor weather and in maritime and desert environments that can augment or replace IR and millimeter wave sensors. Some civilian applications of SAR include maritime search and rescue in adverse conditions, fire line tracking in smoke, iceberg detection Congressional Research Service 18 NCRSASL - 365