Drones will have the right of way over crewed aircraft under certain limited circumstances under new rules proposed for the integration of drones into the National Airspace System. An analysis prepared by EAA says the Normalizing Unmanned Aircraft Systems Beyond Visual Line of Sight Operations Notice of Proposed Rulemaking actually proposed to amend the current right of way rules to give drones the right of way over aircraft operating below 400 feet AGL and not equipped with ADS-B or a yet-to-be developed portable drone detector. Drones will be operated under Section 108, which essentially gives them most airspace below 400 feet AGL. The comment period for the NPRM ends Oct. 6, and EAA is urging members to voice their concerns in the comments.
“Of critical importance to EAA members, this NPRM proposes changes to 14 CFR 91.113 right of way rules, giving the right of way to UAS conducting operations under Part 108 unless a manned aircraft is equipped with either rule-compliant ADS-B or a proposed portable beacon,” EAA said in its analysis. “UA must also avoid airports, heliports, and seaplane bases, and must have secondary avoidance systems (‘detect and avoid,’ or DAA) when operating in Class B and C airspace. In all other airspace within the Part 108 operating regime of 400 feet AGL and below, a drone would have the right of way over manned aircraft not broadcasting a signal.“
There are plenty of aircraft that don’t have ADS-B that operate below 400 feet away from airports, heliports and seaplane bases and a host of ways they might conflict with drones, according to EAA. Drones will have a not-yet-developed drone-to-drone deconfliction system that won’t work with all crewed aircraft and that’s where the proposed portable beacon comes in. “EAA is pushing for any such system to be portable, with minimal power requirements, and completely anonymous,” the report says. It actually sees broad benefits from the development of such a system, as it would allow operators of aircraft that can’t be practically equipped with conventional ADS-B to broadcast the signal. “This NPRM, combined with other efforts EAA is undertaking with industry partners could finally bring portable (anonymous) position reporting to the GA world,” EAA said.
The way that reads suggests that if you have the equipment to detect drones, you don’t have to yield to them, which hardly makes sense.
It’s more like if you have the equipment that allows drones to detect you, you have the right of way.
Great, so if you don’t have equipment for drones to detect you, the drones *that you likely can’t see* have the right-of-way. Brilliant thinking by the FAA.
The FAA … making simple shtuff hard since 1958!
I understand the conundrum, but if this is accompanied by a non-invasive beacon that can be portably added to an airplane, it seems like a reasonable solution. How else would one expect the FAA to be able to deconflict drones running on software from aircraft? I’m leery of ceding a large chunk of airspace – even if I’m very rarely below 400′ – the reality is that drones are going to be a bigger part of life, not a smaller one. If one crunches the numbers, I’m willing to bet that the threat presented to a relatively small group of non-ADSB compliant airplanes that regularly operate below 400′ away from recognized airports is small. Add to that the cost, weight, and associated performance penalty that a drone would have to absorb to be able to detect and avoid a non-participating airplane…
Hopefully this can be implemented with the ability to submit unofficial airports and other areas where airplanes are likely to be below 400′ to a database that these drones could avoid (much like airports) as well as an inexpensive way to allow non-ADSB compliant airplanes to be recognized by 1090/978 receiving drones, this sounds like a reasonable approach to integrating drones into the airspace. It feels a touch alarmist to headline an article that the FAA is considering rewriting the right of way rules to allow drones the right of way – even if that’s technically accurate in this fairly narrow application.
There is, or was, a cigarettes’ pack size battery powered ADS-B Out available. Was around $600. Unfortunately, it is not legal in the US. I however got one for my no electric Aeronca Chief about a year before I sold it. As I “tested” it, it worked great. Other aircraft could see me. I called local FAA. The guy I talked to had never heard of it but said he could not find where the FAA prevented its use, as long as it was not being used for entry into the airspaces requiring the real thing. He said it sounded like an FCC issue and if it enhanced safety, why not…just don’t quote his opinion as an official FAA statement. Last time I looked, the company selling them would not sell in the US though.
Part 108 talks BVLOS and right-of-way, but it skips the biggest hole. About 64% of the U.S. drone fleet, 1.8 million+, under 250 grams, don’t need registration or Remote ID and stay invisible, flying the same <400 ft AGL airspace as ag planes, seaplanes, and ultralights.
Drones under 250 grams should never need remote ID. That is a tiny drone and not a “hole” in the system. They are made small for a reason.. I am much more concerned about 2kg turkey vulture that is not squawking.
Absolutely not, Kevin. Your weight/mass argument should apply to bullets too, shouldn’t it?
ANYTHING, regardless of mass, flying in airspace where they are undetectable by human-carrying aircraft without additional, expensive, and in some cases impractical equipage, and in such a manner that “See-and-avoid” is not possible, should detect and avoid US. Or not be there in the first place. That is indeed a “hole in the system” that is capable of making a deadly hole in my chopper.
Your NORDO turkey vulture comes factory-equipped with a sensory system that ensures that it can “see and avoid” airborne threats. Aircraft don’t.
And may I request that everyone add “helicopters” to Raf’s list of “planes, seaplanes, and ultralights” ?
Aviatrexx, you are correct. Helicopters are the most exposed in this whole debate.
249 grams may be tiny – but half a pound? Not so much.
Well… not minimizing the hazard of a turkey vulture, they’re serious business, but a 249 g drone is a different kind of risk. A vulture is feathers and tissue; a drone is concentrated energy, hard plastic, motors, and a lithium battery that FAA tests show cause more damage per gram than a bird. There are 1.8 million of these in the U.S., flown with no training, no registration, and no Remote ID, often treated as toys, yet sharing the same <400 ft corridor with ag planes, seaplanes, and ultralights. The 400 ft cap is not a safeguard, it is software that can be bypassed, letting a mini climb toward 10,000 ft. That is the hole, not size, but the fact they are numerous, unseen, untrained, and capable of far more than the rules assume.
Made my comment on the NPRM. If this gets approved, people will get hurt. Those of us flying vintage aircraft with no electrics are stuck between the FAA and a hard place. They make it almost impossible to become conforming and then if this gets approved, increases the risks for accidents or incidents significantly. Trying to get anything approved in a vintage aircraft is laughable. All the inspectors come from airlines or regionals and have never seen fabric aircraft before.
Will this be a repeat of the push to have every manned thing airborn push an “out” signal?
https://www.tahoedailytribune.com/news/all-involved-survive-mid-air-crash/
The 2006 corporate jet/glider mid air led to TSO for TABS “black box” traffic awareness beacon system. We know ADSB-out is never fully anonymous. It halted at not showing up on TCAS as did not include what we call a “transponder”.
According the uAvionix, nobody adopted system because the cost is almost the same as ADSB. Now good luck of finding a vendor that offers the systsem.
UAS below 250 grams, flown outside of USC 44809 guidance, are commercial operations and fall under Part 107, and require FAA registration.
…and Remote ID. If you fly the same drone for work (real estate, inspections, surveying, photography, delivery), you must register it and comply with Part 107, including Remote ID.
The disturbing precedent being proposed is that safety of human life is not the priority…and drone use for frivolous purposes (excepting emergency responses, does anyone really need to risk life for Amazon/Walmart delivery?) is prioritized because it’s “too hard” for drones to operate like all other airspace users.
Now if the drone “operator” sat at a console with a loaded gun pointed at his head that would fire if the drone impacted manned acft, perhaps then it wouldn’t be “too hard” to comply .
Follow the money.
Keep in mind also that Part 103 Ultralights aren’t allowed to use the current beaconing systems. So under this NPRM, if a paramotor is flying close to the ground and a UAS runs into it from behind, because it was not possible for the human to see the UAS, the paramotor pilot was at fault. The FAA has done an excellent job with this rule of giving the robot lobbyists what they want, while making it impossible for the humans to comply.
uAvioinix has a small SkyEcho Beacon that is not allowed in FAA airspace for a few reasons, my concern is this is a push to light up everything manned.
J-3 Cub, glider, ultralight, balloon, paraglider, etc, et al, ad nauseum.
Calling it a UAS effort is just the mask, this time around.
https://uavionix.com/blog/electronic-conspicuity-vs-tabs/
Yea. That’s what I had for my Aeronca. Worked great but the company declared it illegal for use in the US.
One (patently illegal, currently) solution would be for someone to design an inexpensive, portable transmitter that jams the frequencies used by drones, for a one-mile radius. In addition to pilots flying low-alt missions, it could be marketed to homeowners who who value their privacy, and who aren’t wild about having drones of real-estate agents, nosy neighbors, or advertisers flying over their property. It would be a lot less intrusive than a 12-gauge.
And you could sell it as a combo package, along with a laser pointer to take care of those nosy, low flying helicopters.
This NPRM is an extremely bad idea, it prioritizes machines over human lives.
All UAS devices MUST have some form of “See and Avoid” capability, no different than the vision requirements placed on all pilots.
Trying to rely on ADSB out from aircraft is not sufficient. Equipment fails. If the ADSB out fails in an aircraft, all the UAS would fail to “see” that aircraft. UAS must have it’s own independent means to “See and Avoid” other aircraft.
Just submitted comments to NPRM.
Don’t forget ADSB has outages too. NOTAMS issued for areas where it won’t be available. Not a great idea here…
I found that uAvionix has a good treatise on the difference between EC (electronic conspicuity) and the more formal TABS (Traffic Awareness Beacon System) beacon beyond what was discussed in the above video:
https://uavionix.com/blog/electronic-conspicuity-vs-tabs/
Looks like an EC device — for those that might be able to use it — is a good idea to me.
So what am I supposed to do here? I fly a J3 float plane in Rural CT.