The FAA has received so many comments on the use of electronic conspicuity devices and other detection technologies in its pursuit of new airspace rules for drones that it wants to hear more. The agency has extended the comment period on the proposed Part 108 rule to integrate drone use in the airspace system, but only on specific topics. Comments will be accepted until Feb. 11. “Noting the substantial interest in, and comment on, FAA’s proposed policies for ADS-B Out, EC, and detect-and-avoid, FAA is reopening the NPRM for comment on the limited topics discussed herein,” the agency said in its notice. “FAA wants to ensure that it fully understands these comments and the relevant policy implications.”
The agency released the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking last August, and it contained some controversial ideas. Chief among them was that aircraft not emitting ADS-B signals yield right of way to drones below 400 feet. There was also discussion of equipping non-ADS-B crewed aircraft with inexpensive electronic conspicuity devices that would be picked up by the sense and avoid systems on the drones. More than half of the comments received on the NPRM were about those topics, and that prompted the agency to hold “listening sessions” with representatives of the drone industry and aviation groups to hear the comments in person. It now wants to make sure it has clarity on those positions.
Calling this an “extension” is misleading. This is not a real reset of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). It is a narrow reopening aimed at two things only: electronic conspicuity (EC) and right of way.
That is exactly where the misalignment shows up. The FAA is still steering toward a burden shift where the piloted aircraft must be electronically detectable, while Part 108 drones get presumptive right of way except in defined cases, including when the manned aircraft is broadcasting ADS-B Out or an approved alternate electronic conspicuity device.
Now add the part people keep stepping around. Recreational drones under 250 grams are not required to be registered, and Remote ID applies to drones that are required to be registered or are registered. That leaves a real gap where thousands of small drones can be electronically dark in the same surface to 400 feet AGL band where helicopters, ag, and other low-altitude manned ops live. Remote ID is accountability, not separation.
Separation needs an owner. If BVLOS is going to expand, drones must own the yield logic by rule. That is what I mean by DFR-B. If a drone detects a verified manned-aircraft signal, it yields. Always.