Drones and the

U.S. Government

Edited by

Michael Erbschloe

Connect with Michael on LinkedIn

©2017 Michael Erbschloe

Table of Contents

About the Editor

Introduction

The U.S. Military Faces Many Challenges with Drones

Issues with Civilian Use of Drones

Appendix A: Presidential Memorandum: Promoting Economic Competitiveness While Safeguarding Privacy, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties in Domestic Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems

Appendix B: Voluntary Best Practices for UAS Privacy, Transparency, and Accountability

About the Editor

Michael Erbschloe has worked for over 30 years performing analysis of the economics of information technology, public policy relating to technology, and utilizing technology in reengineering organization processes. He has authored several books on social and management issues of information technology that were published by McGraw Hill and other major publishers. He has also taught at several universities and developed technology-related curriculum. His career has focused on several interrelated areas:

Technology strategy, analysis, and forecasting

Teaching and curriculum development

Writing books and articles

Publishing and editing

Public policy analysis and program evaluation

Books by Michael Erbschloe

Social Media Warfare: Equal Weapons for All (Auerbach Publications)

Walling Out the Insiders: Controlling Access to Improve Organizational Security (Auerbach Publications)

Physical Security for IT (Elsevier Science)

Trojans, Worms, and Spyware (Butterworth-Heinemann)

Implementing Homeland Security in Enterprise IT (Digital Press)

Guide to Disaster Recovery (Course Technology)

Socially Responsible IT Management (Digital Press)

Information Warfare: How to Survive Cyber Attacks (McGraw Hill)

The Executive's Guide to Privacy Management (McGraw Hill)

Net Privacy: A Guide to Developing & Implementing an e-business Privacy Plan (McGraw Hill)

Introduction

On February 15, 2015, President Obama issued the Presidential Memorandum "Promoting Economic Competitiveness While Safeguarding Privacy, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties in Domestic Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems."  The Presidential Memorandum stated: "As UAS are integrated into the National Air Space (NAS), the Federal Government will take steps to ensure that the integration takes into account not only our economic competitiveness and public safety, but also the privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties concerns these systems may raise." The Presidential Memorandum establishes a "multi-stakeholder engagement process to develop and communicate best practices for privacy, accountability, and transparency issues regarding commercial and private UAS use in the NAS." The process will include stakeholders from industry, civil society, and academia, and will be initiated by the Department of Commerce, through National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA), and in consultation with other interested agencies.

NTIA's role in the multi-stakeholder process is to provide a forum for discussion and consensus-building among stakeholders.  When stakeholders disagree, NTIA's role is to help the parties reach clarity on what their positions are and whether there are options for compromise toward consensus, rather than substituting its own judgment.  Furthermore, this stakeholder group is not an advisory committee, as neither NTIA nor any other Federal agency or office will seek consensus advice or recommendations on policy issues from participants in this multi-stakeholder process. Public stakeholder meetings will be webcast, and there will be an opportunity for stakeholders viewing the webcast to participate remotely in the meetings through a moderated conference bridge.

On March 5, 2015, NTIA sought public comment regarding privacy, accountability, and transparency issues concerning UAS.  Individuals and entities in the commercial, academic, civil society, and government sectors filed comments. Stakeholders at the May 18, 2016 meeting agreed to conclude the process, and a diverse group of stakeholders came to consensus on a best practices document. This document was updated at the request of stakeholders on June 21, 2016, to include background information and reaction, but it does not include any changes to the UAS best practices agreed to on May 18, 2016.

The stakeholders that support this best practices document include:  Amazon, Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), Center for Democracy and Technology, Commercial Drone Alliance, Consumer Technology Association, CTIA, Future of Privacy Forum, Intel, New America's Open Technology Institute, PrecisionHawk, X (Formerly Google [x]), Small UAV Coalition, Online Trust Alliance (OTA), News Media Coalition, Newspaper Association of America (NAA), National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), Radio Television Digital News Association (RTDNA), Digital Content Next (DCN), Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA), NetChoice, U.S. Chamber of Commerce. (Link: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2016/multistakeholder-process-unmanned-aircraft-systems)

The increased use of drones for civilian applications has presented many countries with regulatory challenges.  Such challenges include the need to ensure that drones are operated safely, without harming public and national security, and in a way that would protect areas of national, historical, or natural importance.  A variety of the countries surveyed in this report have also made efforts to address concerns regarding the property and privacy rights of landowners or other persons impacted by the operation of drones. (Link: https://www.loc.gov/law/help/regulation-of-drones/index.php)

Drones—unmanned, remotely piloted, aerial vehicles, short UAVs—are now used by the armed forces of approximately 70 countries around the world. The club of armed UAV holders remains more exclusive; for the moment, its members only include Israel, the United Kingdom, the United States, and most likely China and Iran. This situation, however, is likely to change sooner rather than later with many countries considering the procurement of armed drones. Unconfirmed reports indicate that the U.S. military, security forces, and Intelligence Community operate over 10,000 drones.  (Link: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/issues/Spring_2014/12A_Franke-ReviewEssays.pdf)

Turkey, Syria, Iran, Russia, the U.S., Britain and Iraq all have used drones in the Iraq-Syria region. Kurdish militias, Syrian rebel forces, and the Hezbollah and IS have also used some form of drones. While the Pentagon tries to keep its drone program covert, it has admitted several times in recent months to striking specific IS targets with drones, according to news reports. Among the targets was Islamic State's Jihadi John, who was shown in gruesome videos beheading U.S. and Western hostages. The drone program, which is run by the CIA and the Joint Special Operation Command, largely operates out of a Turkish military base (Link: http://www.voanews.com/a/military-drones-flood-war-skies-over-syria-and-iraq/3330150.html)

The U.S. Military Faces Many Challenges with Drones

Remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) are one of the most in-demand capabilities the Air Force provides to battlefield commanders. Beyond replacing human beings in aircraft that perform dangerous roles, RPAs are highly valuable because they possess characteristics that many manned aircraft do not. For example, they can fly long-duration missions, thereby providing a sustained presence over the battlefield. In response to the increased demand, the Air Force has significantly increased the number of RPAs it uses for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance and precision strike capabilities, according to Air Force documentation. Consequently, the Air Force has increased the number of its pilots flying RPAs from approximately 400 in 2008 to about 1,350 in 2013. Due to the increased demand for their capabilities, these pilots have served at a high pace of operations since 2007.

Most of these pilots are located on Air Force bases within the United States and fly the RPAs overseas in operational environments. The Air Force uses the term RPA to refer to large unmanned aircraft systems, such as the MQ-1 Predator. The Department of Defense (DOD) defines an unmanned aerial system as a system whose components include the necessary equipment, networks, and personnel to control an unmanned aircraft—that is, an aircraft that does not carry a human operator and is capable of flight under remote control or autonomous programming.

Pace of operations refers to the number of aircraft flying hours and it increases with the intensity and number of operations. In fiscal year 2013, the Air Force flew its Predator and Reaper systems for over 300,000 hours, combined.

GAO prior work has found that DOD has faced challenges in the development and acquisition of unmanned aircraft systems and in the integration of these systems into combat operations. Regarding personnel, we have found that the Air Force and the Army identified limitations in their approaches to provide personnel to meet unmanned aircraft systems force levels, and they had not fully developed plans to supply needed personnel. More recently, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 20135 required the Air Force to report on the education, training, and promotion rates of RPA pilots.

From 2008 to 2014, the Air Force has more than tripled the number of its active-duty pilots flying RPAs, which is the term the Air Force uses to refer to unmanned aerial systems such as the MQ-1 Predator. Due to increases in demand, RPA pilots have had a significant increase in workload since 2007. The General Accountability Office (GAO) was asked to evaluate the Air Force's approach to managing its RPA pilots as well as their quality of life and promotion rates. For this review, GAO evaluated the extent to which the Air Force (1) has used a strategic human-capital approach to manage RPA pilots; (2) has addressed concerns, if any, about the working conditions of RPA pilots that may affect their quality of life; and (3) analyzes the promotion rates of RPA pilots.

GAO analyzed personnel planning documents, Air Force studies, and officer promotion data. GAO also interviewed unit commanders at selected Air Force bases and Headquarters Air Force officials and conducted focus groups with RPA pilots. While the results of these focus groups are not generalizable, they provide valuable insights.

The Air Force has managed its remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) pilots using some strategic human-capital approaches, such as planning for the different levels of experience that it needs in these pilots. However, it continues to face challenges. High-performing organizations manage human capital to identify the right number of personnel and to target the right sources to fill personnel needs. In 2008, the Air Force determined the optimum number of RPA pilots—the crew ratio—for some units, but it did not account for all tasks these units complete. Air Force officials stated that, as a result, the crew ratio is too low, but the Air Force has not updated it. Air Force guidance states that low crew ratios diminish combat capability and cause flight safety to suffer, but the Air Force has operated below its optimum crew ratio and it has not established a minimum crew ratio. Further, high work demands on RPA pilots limit the time they have available for training and development and negatively affects their work-life balance. In addition, the Air Force faces challenges recruiting officers into the RPA pilot career and may face challenges retaining them in the future. High-performing organizations tailor their recruiting and retention strategies to meet their specific mission needs, but the Air Force has not tailored its approach to recruiting and retaining RPA pilots nor considered the viability of using alternative personnel such as enlisted personnel or civilians. Without developing an approach to recruiting and retaining RPA pilots and evaluating the viability of using alternative personnel populations for the RPA pilot career, the Air Force may continue to face challenges, further exacerbating existing shortfalls of RPA pilots. Moreover, the Air Force has not used direct feedback from RPA pilots via existing mechanisms, or otherwise, to develop its approach to managing challenges related to recruiting, retention, training, and development of RPA pilots.

The Air Force has taken some actions to address potentially difficult working conditions RPA pilots face, but it has not fully analyzed the challenge pilots face to balance their warfighting roles with their personal lives. RPA pilots operate RPAs from bases in the United States and live at home; thus they experience combat alongside their personal lives—known as being deployed-on-station—which RPA pilots stated negatively affects their morale. While the Department of Defense has committed to maintaining high morale for service members, the Air Force has not fully analyzed the effects on morale related to being deployed-on-station, and thus it does not know whether it needs to take actions in response.

The Air Force monitors RPA pilot promotion rates, but has not analyzed factors that may relate to their low promotion rates. Statistical principles call for researchers to account for potential key factors in analysis because when they omit key factors, the relationships between other factors may not be accurately estimated. The Air Force analyzed promotions across a group of officers, including RPA pilots, and found factors that related to promotions in general. However, the Air Force has not analyzed the factors related to RPA pilots' promotions specifically and, as a result, it does not have the information to determine what factors may affect their promotions. Consequently, the Air Force may not be targeting actions it is taking to raise RPA pilot promotion rates at the appropriate factors, and information it has reported to Congress may not be accurate.

The initial training that the Air Force provides to its RPA pilots is designed specifically for flying RPAs and consists of two major components that take about 10 months to complete. The first major component is Undergraduate RPA Training and it consists of a basic flying skills course in which RPA pilots learn to fly a small manned aircraft in Pueblo, Colorado; instrument training in a manned-aircraft flight simulator at Randolph Air Force Base in Texas, and an RPA fundamentals course that is also at Randolph. In the second major component of their initial training, RPA pilots get their first opportunity to fly an RPA at a Formal Training Unit, which for most active-duty pilots takes place at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico. During this training, RPA pilots learn basic RPA operations in all mission areas including intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance as well as close air support. Following their time in Formal Training Units, RPA pilots finish their training by attending a 2-week joint weapons course in which they learn how to operate with the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps in a joint operational environment.

The Air Force spends considerably less to train RPA pilots than it does to train manned-aircraft pilots. Specifically, Air Education and Training Command officials estimate that the Air Force spends about $65,000 to train each RPA pilot to complete Undergraduate RPA Training. Conversely, these officials estimate that the Air Force spends an average of $557,000 for each manned-aircraft pilot to complete the corresponding portion of manned-aircraft pilot training, which is called Undergraduate Pilot Training.

The Air Force currently flies the bulk of its RPAs using a concept known as remote-split operations. With remote-split operations, a small number of RPA pilots deploy to operational theaters located overseas to launch and recover RPAs from various locations around the world while other RPA pilots remotely control the RPA for its mission from Air Force bases in the United States. According to Air Force officials, remote-split operations help the Air Force reduce the personnel and equipment it deploys overseas because the units that launch and recover RPAs are staffed with a relatively small number of pilots, sensor operators, support personnel, and equipment. In addition, remote-split operations provide the Air Force flexibility to change the geographic region of the world where an RPA pilot conducts a mission without moving the pilot, support personnel, or equipment needed to control the RPA. If the Air Force is not able to use one of its launch and recovery sites for various reasons such as poor weather, the Air Force can continue its RPA operations by launching RPAs from a different launch and recovery site.

Drone Air Force Careers

The Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA)11 created a system for managing the promotions for the officer corps of each of the military services. DOPMA specifies that the secretaries of the military departments must establish the maximum number of officers in each competitive category that may be recommended for promotion by competitive promotion boards. Career categories, also known as competitive categories, cluster officers with similar education, training, or experience, and these officers compete among themselves for promotion opportunities. Under this system, as currently implemented in the Air Force, there are several competitive categories including one that contains the bulk of Air Force officers called the Line of the Air Force, which includes RPA pilots, as well as pilots of manned aircraft and other operations-oriented careers.

To consider officers for promotion from among those who are eligible, the Air Force assigns groups of senior officers to serve as members of a promotion selection board for each competitive category of officer in the Air Force. Promotion boards consist of at least five active-duty officers who are senior in grade to the eligible officers, but no officer on the board is below the rank of major. In addition, Air Force guidance states that the Air Force attempts to provide a balanced perspective on promotion boards, and hence it selects officers who mirror, as much as possible, the officers they are considering with respect to race, sex, aeronautical rating, career field, and command. Promotion boards typically convene annually at AFPC headquarters to review a variety of records for each eligible officer, including performance and training reports as well as recommendations from supervisors. Board members assess these records using a best-qualified approach and use a variety of methods to score the records and resolve differences among the scoring of the board members, if necessary. An Air Force officer cannot serve as a member of two successive promotion boards considering officers of the same competitive category and rank.

A key feature of DOPMA is its “up-or-out” promotion system. Under this system, as currently implemented in the Air Force, promotion to the first two ranks in an officer’s career is not competitive. Specifically, 100 percent of fully qualified Air Force second lieutenants and first lieutenants are promoted after serving for 2 years in their respective ranks and do not meet with a competitive promotion board. However, as officers advance through the ranks in cohorts that are determined by the year they were commissioned, they compete for promotion against other members of their cohort at set years or zones of consideration for each rank. For example, Air Force officers are generally considered for promotion to major, or the grade of O-4, after 10 years.

Under the DOPMA system, a select group of officers can also be considered for promotion 1 or 2 years early, or “below the zone.” However, because only a limited number of officers below the zone may be promoted, officers have their greatest potential for promotion “in the zone.” If officers in a cohort are not promoted while they are in the zone, they can compete for promotion in the following one or in some instances two years later, which is known as competing “above the zone.” However, if these officers are not selected for promotion above the zone, they could be involuntarily separated from the Air Force.

DOD has noted that the prevalence and use of unmanned systems, including RPAs, will continue to grow at a dramatic pace. As discussed above, the Secretary of Defense has stated specifically that the requirement for 65 CAPs represents a temporary plateau in progress toward an increased enduring requirement. Also, as the national security environment changes, RPA pilots will be expected to conduct a broader range of missions across different conditions and environments, including anti-access and area-denial environments where the freedom to operate RPAs is contested. By not creating an environment where RPA pilots can receive the training and development opportunities they need to perform their functions effectively, the Air Force may be hindering its ability to perform its mission even if it is able to operate at the optimum crew ratio that is set in the Air Force instruction.

The Work Life of a Drone Pilot

RPA pilots find their mission rewarding, but they reported that they face multiple, challenging working conditions. RPA pilots in 8 of the 10 focus groups we conducted reported that they found it rewarding to be able to contribute to combat operations every day through the RPA mission. For instance, one pilot stated that the mission is the reason that he had decided to become a permanent RPA pilot and that it was rewarding to contribute to overseas contingency operations, which he would not be able to do in any other job. Similarly, the Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine published studies in 2011 and 2013 that evaluated the psychological condition of RPA personnel and found that RPA pilots held positive perceptions of the effect and contributions of their work. However, RPA pilots also stated that they face multiple challenging working conditions including: long hours, working shifts that frequently rotate, and remaining in assignments beyond typical lengths.29 RPA pilots in all of our focus groups reported that these challenging conditions negatively affected their morale and caused them stress. Similarly, the Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine studies found that RPA personnel reported sources of stress that were consistent with the challenges we identified. These challenges include the following:

RPA pilots in 8 of our 10 focus groups stated, and Air Force studies we reviewed show, that RPA pilots work long hours. RPA pilots in 7 of our focus groups described factors that contribute to their long hours including performing administrative duties and attending briefings, in addition to flying shifts. The Air Force studies also found that working long hours was one of the top five reasons for stress among personnel in RPA squadrons. In the studies, over 57 percent of respondents reported that they worked more than 50 hours per week. In addition, the studies found that over 40 percent of respondents reported that performing administrative duties added hours to their work week and was the third-highest reason for stress among active-duty RPA personnel.

RPA pilots also reported that it was challenging to work on shifts that rotate. RPA pilots in 7 of the 10 focus groups we conducted stated that constantly rotating shifts caused sleep problems for them because they must continuously adjust their sleep schedule to accommodate new shifts.30 In addition, pilots noted that continuously rotating to new shifts disrupted their ability to spend time with their family and friends. Officials told us that it was ideal for pilots working evening or night shifts to maintain a consistent sleep pattern on their off-duty days even though those sleep patterns would require that pilots sleep while their family and friends were awake. However, some RPA pilots reported that they typically adjusted their sleep schedules dramatically on their off-duty days so they could spend time with their families and that these changes to their sleep schedules resulted in significant fatigue both at home and when they returned to work. Similarly, over half of the respondents to the surveys included in the Air Force studies we reviewed reported that shift work caused a moderate to large amount of their stress.

RPA pilots in 5 of our focus groups reported that being assigned to continue flying RPAs for periods extending beyond the typical Air Force assignment was difficult. In all of the focus groups we conducted with RPA pilots, those who plan to return to flying manned aircraft stated that they have been required to stay in their assignments for periods that are longer than a typical Air Force assignment. Air Force officials stated that there is no requirement for officers to move to a new assignment after a specified period. However, pilots in our focus groups and Air Force headquarters officials said that officer assignments typically last 3 to 4 years. Air Force documentation shows that some of these pilots have been in their RPA assignments for over 6 years. Moreover, the Air Force studies also found that one of the most common stressors that RPA personnel cited was the lack of clarity regarding when they would return to their careers in manned aircraft. Specifically, the 2011 study states that the Air Force informed RPA pilots who previously flew manned aircraft that their RPA assignments were temporary and after 3 to 4 years they could return to their manned-aircraft career. The study goes on to state that due to the increasing demand for RPAs and the long-standing surge in RPA operations, many pilots have been unable to return to their manned-aircraft careers and, until recently, the Air Force kept them in these assignments indefinitely.

The Air Force has taken some actions to address some of the challenging working conditions that RPA pilots face. The Air Force studies included over 10 recommendations to address the sources of stress that RPA personnel reported. For example, the studies recommended that the Air Force assign an operational psychologist to each RPA unit to help commanders optimize work-rest schedules and shift cycles, and identify pilots who are reaching elevated levels of fatigue or stress. In response, the Air Force has assigned mental-health providers that are dedicated to RPA squadrons at Beale, Cannon, and Creech Air Force Bases. However, the studies also recommended that the Air Force increase staffing in RPA squadrons to reduce the number of hours that RPA personnel work and to help establish better shift schedules. Air Force researchers stated that increasing staffing levels, or crew ratios, in RPA squadrons would be the most-effective means to reduce RPA pilot stress, but as discussed above, the Air Force has operated its RPA squadrons below the optimum crew ratios.

RPA pilots also face challenges related to being deployed-on-station as they balance their warfighting responsibilities with their personal lives. Because pilots are able to operate RPAs from Air Force bases in the United States and are thus able to live at home—what is known as being deployed-on-station—their dual role juxtaposes stress related to supporting combat operations with the strains that can occur in their personal lives. While these pilots face this challenging working condition that may affect their quality of life, DOD’s Quadrennial Quality of Life Reviews have emphasized DOD’s continued commitment to provide service members with the best quality of life possible.

(Link: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-316)

In a report from the GAO in March 2016 the GAO found that after an April 2014, when the GAO reported on several issues the Air Force faced in managing its UAS pilots, and while the Air Force has taken some actions since then, it has not fully implemented GAO's recommendations to strengthen its management:

Personnel Requirements: GAO reported that the Air Force had not accurately identified the number of UAS pilots required to accomplish its mission nor had it established a minimum number of pilots needed. As of March 2016, the Air Force had not updated personnel requirements and until it does, the Air Force will not know if it is assuming unacceptable levels of risk to accomplishing the mission and ensuring pilot safety.

Recruiting and Retaining: GAO reported that the Air Force had faced challenges recruiting UAS pilots and might also face retention challenges in the future. The Air Force has taken steps to recruit more UAS pilots and offers a monthly assignment incentive pay to help retain pilots, but issues related to recruiting UAS pilots may warrant the Air Force's attention.

Alternative Sources: GAO reported that the Air Force had not evaluated the use of alternative personnel populations such as enlisted or civilian personnel to help it sustain required UAS pilot staffing levels. In 2015, the Air Force announced it would test using enlisted personnel but has not formally evaluated using DOD civilian personnel as UAS pilots and thus may lack information on potential options for meeting personnel requirements.

Training: GAO reported that the Air Force had faced challenges training its UAS pilots due to UAS pilot shortages, which impacted its ability to produce new pilots. Fully implementing GAO's recommendations pertaining to management of UAS pilots would better position the Air Force to address its training challenges.

Promotions: GAO reported that the Air Force monitors the promotion rates of UAS pilots but had not analyzed factors that may relate to their low promotion rates. Until the Air Force does this analysis, it is unclear whether its actions to raise promotion rates are appropriate.

(Link: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-527T)

Predator squadrons should be 10:1, which calls for 10 UAS pilots to support one near-continuous 24-hour flight presence of an Air Force UAS over a particular geographic location. Headquarters Air Force officials stated that, because of the omitted tasks, the study’s recommended 10:1 crew ratio probably did not provide enough pilots to perform the work in an MQ-1 squadron. In addition, some UAS unit commanders and UAS pilots in some of the 10 focus groups we conducted at three Air Force bases said that the 10:1 crew ratio was too low.7 High-performing organizations use complete and current data to inform their strategic human capital planning and remain open to reevaluating workforce planning efforts. Consequently, we recommended that the Air Force update crew ratios for UAS units to help ensure that the Air Force establishes a more-accurate understanding of the required number of UAS pilots in its units, and the Air Force concurred with GAO recommendation.

In April 2014 GAO found that the Air Force had reduced the capacity of its training units by moving instructor pilots to operational units to react to increasing demand for UAS capabilities. A core characteristic of a strategic training framework is that agencies should provide appropriate resources for its training programs. However, In May 2015, GAO found that the Air Force had staffed its UAS training squadrons at Holloman Air Force Base at 63 percent of their planned staffing levels due to shortages of UAS pilots across the Air Force, which Air Force officials stated in turn impacted the Air Force’s ability to produce new pilots. GAO also reported actions the Air Force was taking to increase the number of instructor pilots, including studying the personnel requirements for the formal training unit. Air Force officials stated that as of February 2016, the Air Force had filled 84 percent of its instructor pilot positions at Holloman. These officials said that there is still a need to increase the number of instructor pilots, and the Air Force goal is to fill 100 percent of the instructor pilot slots by fiscal year 2017. Fully implementing GAO recommendations pertaining to management of UAS pilots should better position the Air Force to address the need to increase the number of instructor pilots.

The GAO found that the Army has initiated steps to address challenges related to UAS pilots completing their required training and its use of less experienced instructors, which could affect training quality. In May 2015, GAO found that Army unit status reports did not require UAS pilot training information, and thus the Army did not know the extent pilots had been trained and were ready to deploy. GAO recommended that the Army require unit status reports to include UAS pilot readiness information. In March 2016, officials stated that the Army had taken steps to implement the recommendation, but its efforts are ongoing and thus it is too early to know their impact. Also, the Army had waived course prerequisites for about 40 percent of the UAS pilots attending a course to become instructor pilots from the beginning of fiscal year 2013 through February 2015. As a result, Army UAS pilots may not have been receiving the highest caliber of training to prepare them for UAS missions. GAO recommended in May 2015 that the Army mitigate risks posed by waiving prerequisites for less experienced UAS pilots, and in March 2016, Army officials stated that they have addressed the underlying causes that led it to waive the prerequisites, but they did not provide information for GAO to be able to determine whether they were continuing to waive these prerequisites.

In May 2015, GAO found that a 2015 Army review showed that pilots in most of the Army’s Shadow units did not complete training in their units in fiscal year 2014. GAO previously developed a set of core characteristics for assessing strategic training programs in the federal government.10 One of these characteristics calls for agency leaders to demonstrate that they value continuous learning. In January 2015, the Chief of Staff of the Army directed the Army Training and Doctrine Command to evaluate if unit training was a factor that caused UAS mishaps in combat. The Army reviewed this issue from January 2015 through March 2015 and found that UAS pilots in 61 of the 65 RQ-7B Shadow units that were not deployed in fiscal year 2014 had flown an annual unit average of 150 hours of training, which is about 200 hours less than minimum amount of training flight hours that an Army unit is required to fly according to the review. In addition, the review included recommendations to increase emphasis on training in UAS units including that the Army should (1) issue guidance to unit commanders on UAS training; (2) ensure that UAS warrant officers are qualified on their UAS; (3) Increase the amount of home station training for UAS units; and (4) establish a system to report UAS training readiness on unit status reports.

In May 2015, GAO also found that the Army does not have visibility over the amount of training that pilots in some Army UAS units have completed. Another core characteristic of a strategic training framework highlights the importance of quality data regarding training. However, GAO found that Army did not have access to data that would allow it to measure the amount of training that UAS pilots have completed in Army UAS units. Army Forces Command officials stated that they need information about the readiness level of pilots in UAS units to determine if a unit is ready to deploy and perform its mission. These officials stated that they review Army unit status reports to determine if a unit is prepared to deploy. However, officials from Army Headquarters, Army Forces Command and the Army Aviation Center of Excellence both stated that these reports do not provide any information on the readiness levels of the UAS pilots in UAS units because the reports are not required to include this information. Officials at Forces Command stated that, using these reports, they have designated units as available for deployment and later learned that a significant portion of the pilots in those units had not completed their readiness level training. Without requiring information on the readiness level of pilots in UAS units as part of unit status reports, Army Forces Command will continue to lack visibility over the amount of training that UAS pilots have completed in units. To provide greater visibility over the extent to which Army UAS units have completed required training to leaders responsible for deployment decisions, GAO recommended that the Army require unit status reports to include information on the readiness levels of UAS pilots in UAS units and the Army concurred.

Since GAO issued the report in May 2015, Army Headquarters officials stated that the Army had drafted an update to Department of the Army Pamphlet 220-1 that would require UAS units to report the readiness levels of the UAS pilots in UAS units.15 In addition, these officials stated that the Army was working on updating the unit status reporting software to enable units to comply with the planned update to the Army pamphlet. While the steps that Army has taken to date should address our recommendation, its efforts are ongoing and thus it is too early to know their impact.

In May 2015, GAO found that the Army had taken actions to increase the number of UAS instructors, but it had not fully addressed the risks associated with using less experienced instructors. In order to increase the number of its instructors in response to an increase in the number of UAS units, the Army waived course prerequisites for about 40 percent of the UAS pilots attending the course to become instructor pilots from the beginning of fiscal year 2013 through February 2015.These prerequisites—such as a minimum number of flight hours— are important because they help ensure that UAS pilots volunteering to become instructors to help ensure that instructors are fully trained and ready to instruct UAS pilots.

In May 2015, GAO found that the Army had taken steps to mitigate the risks of using less proficient UAS instructors. For example, in fiscal year 2015, the Army stopped waiving course prerequisites related to proficiency, according to Army Aviation Center of Excellence officials. However, the Army could continue to waive prerequisites related to experience. As a result, we found that Army UAS pilots may not have been receiving the highest caliber of training needed to prepare them to successfully perform UAS missions. To help ensure that Army UAS pilots receive the highest caliber of training, GAO recommended, in May 2015, that the Army take additional steps to mitigate potential risks posed by waiving course prerequisites for less experienced UAS pilots attending the course to become instructors and the Army concurred.

In February 2016, Army Headquarters officials stated that the Army has taken additional steps to mitigate potential risks posed by waiving course prerequisites for less experienced UAS pilots attending the course to become instructors. However, the Army did not respond to requests GAO made in March 2016 for it to explain these additional steps; nor did the Army respond to requests we made for it to provide updated statistics to determine if the Army was continuing to waive these prerequisites. In addition, an Army official from Training and Doctrine Command stated that the Army had not provided additional training or preparation for instructors who previously received a waiver of one of the course prerequisites to attend the instructor course as GAO had recommended.

Some coordination is occurring among the services with respect to UAS pilot training but DOD has not yet developed a department-wide UAS training strategy. In May 2015, GAO found that the actions that the services had taken were either partially consistent or inconsistent with the key practices to enhance and sustain agency coordination. GAO previously reported that agencies face a range of barriers when they attempt to collaborate with other agencies. To help agencies overcome these barriers, we developed a set of key practices that can help enhance and sustain federal agency collaboration.17 According to these key practices, federal agencies can enhance and sustain their coordination if they take a number of actions including the following.

Agencies should identify the human, information technology, physical, and financial resources needed to initiate or sustain their coordinated effort. In May 2015, GAO found that DOD actions were partially consistent with this principle. For instance, the Air Force and the Army provide resources to train all Marine Corps UAS pilots. However, as we found in May 2015, both the Army and the Air Force are working on addressing UAS personnel shortages and such shortages may negatively affect their ability to continue to train Marine Corps UAS pilots.

Agencies should agree on their roles and responsibilities, including how the coordinated effort will be led. In May 2015, we found the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Readiness) and the services have not agreed on roles or responsibilities for any of the services for coordinating on UAS pilot training. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisitions, Technology, and Logistics established a UAS Task Force in 2007, and its charter states that its mission is to coordinate critical DOD UAS issues. However, a task force official stated that the task force does not play a role in coordinating UAS pilot training among the services.

Agencies should define a clear and compelling rationale for coordination. In March 2010, GAO found that DOD had begun to address UAS training challenges, but had not developed a strategy to prioritize and synchronize these efforts. GAO recommended that DOD establish a DOD-wide UAS training strategy to resolve challenges that affect the ability of the Air Force and the Army to train personnel for UAS operations and DOD concurred with that recommendation.19 The Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Readiness) tasked the RAND Corporation to draft a DOD-wide UAS training strategy and provided RAND with guidelines about the content and purpose of the strategy.  However, these guidelines did not discuss if or how the services should coordinate on UAS pilot training. In September 2014, RAND provided a draft of a UAS training strategy to the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Readiness), but the draft did not define a rationale for the services to coordinate on training UAS pilots nor did it more generally discuss service coordination on training UAS pilots.

(Link: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/675834.pdf)

Issues with Civilian Use of Drones

UASs are aircraft that do not carry a pilot aboard, but instead operate on pre-programmed routes or are manually controlled by following commands from pilot-operated ground control stations. Unauthorized UAS operations have, in some instances, compromised safety. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 directed FAA to take actions to safely integrate UASs into the national airspace. In response, FAA developed a phased approach to facilitate integration and established test sites among other things.

GAO was asked to review FAA's progress in integrating UASs. The August 2015 report addresses (1) the status of FAA's progress toward safe integration of UASs into the national airspace, (2) research and development support from FAA's test sites and other resources, and (3) how other countries have progressed toward UAS integration into their airspace for commercial purposes. GAO reviewed and analyzed FAA's integration- planning documents; interviewed officials from FAA and UAS industry stakeholders; and met with the civil aviation authorities from Australia, Canada, France, and the United Kingdom. These countries were selected based on several factors including whether they have regulatory requirements for commercial UASs, operations beyond the view of the pilot, and whether non-military UAS are allowed to operate in the airspace.

The GAO found that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has progressed toward its goal of seamlessly integrating unmanned aerial system (UAS) flights into the national airspace. FAA has issued its UAS Comprehensive Plan and UAS Integration Roadmap which provide broad plans for integration. However, according to FAA, it is working with MITRE to develop a foundation for an implementation plan; FAA then expects to enact a plan by December 2015. While FAA still approves all UAS operations on a case-by-case basis, in recent years it has increased approvals for UAS operations. Specifically, the total number of approvals for UAS operations has increased each year since 2010, and over the past year has included approvals for commercial UAS operations for the first time. In addition, FAA has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposes regulations for small UASs (less than 55 pounds).

The FAA's six designated test sites have become operational but have had to address various challenges during the process. The designated test sites became operational in 2014, and as of March 2015, over 195 test flights had taken place. These flights provide operations and safety data to FAA in support of UAS integration. In addition, FAA has provided all test sites with a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization allowing small UAS operations below 200 feet anywhere in the United States. However, during the first year of operations, the test sites faced some challenges. Specifically, the test sites sought additional guidance regarding the type of research they should conduct. According to FAA, it cannot direct the test sites, which receive no federal funding, to conduct specific research. However, FAA did provide a list of potential research areas to the test sites to provide some guidance on areas for research. FAA has conducted other UAS research through agreements with MITRE and some universities, and in May 2015 named the location of the UAS Center of Excellence—a partnership among academia, industry, and government conducting additional UAS research. Unlike FAA's agreements with the test sites, many of these arrangements have language specifically addressing the sharing of research and data.

Around the world, countries have been allowing UAS operations in their airspace for purposes such as agricultural applications and aerial surveying. Unlike in the United States, countries GAO examined—Australia, Canada, France, and the United Kingdom—have well-established UAS regulations.  Also, Canada and France currently allow more commercial operations than the United States. While the United States had not finalized UAS regulations, the provisions of FAA's proposed rules are similar to those in the countries GAO examined. However, FAA may not issue a final rule for UASs until late 2016 or early 2017, and rules in some of these countries continue to evolve. Meanwhile, unlike under FAA's proposed rule, Canada has created exemptions for commercial use of small UASs in two categories that allow operations without a government-issued certification, and France and Australia are approving limited beyond line-of-sight operations. Similar to the United States, other countries are facing technology shortfalls, such as the ability to detect and avoid other aircraft and obstacles, as well as unresolved issues involving limited spectrum that limit the progress toward full integration of UASs into the airspace in these countries.

(Link: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-610)

Busting Myths about the FAA and Unmanned Aircraft

There are a lot of misconceptions and misinformation about unmanned aircraft system (UAS) regulations. Here are some common myths and the corresponding facts.

Myth #1: The FAA doesn't control airspace below 400 feet

Fact—The FAA is responsible for the safety of U.S. airspace from the ground up. This misperception may originate with the idea that manned aircraft generally must stay at least 500 feet above the ground

Myth #2: Commercial UAS flights are OK if I'm over private property and stay below 400 feet.

Fact—The FAA published a Federal Register notice (PDF) in 2007 that clarified the agency’s policy: You may not fly a UAS for commercial purposes by claiming that you’re operating according to the Model Aircraft guidelines (below 400 feet, 3 miles from an airport, away from populated areas.)  Commercial operations are only authorized on a case-by-case basis. A commercial flight requires a certified aircraft, a licensed pilot and operating approval.   To date, only one operation has met these criteria, using Insitu's ScanEagle, and authorization was limited to the Arctic.( http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=73981)

Myth #3: Commercial UAS operations are a “gray area” in FAA regulations.

Fact—There are no shades of gray in FAA regulations. Anyone who wants to fly an aircraft—manned or unmanned—in U.S. airspace needs some level of FAA approval. Private sector (civil) users can obtain an experimental airworthiness certificate to conduct research and development, training and flight demonstrations.  Commercial UAS operations are limited and require the operator to have certified aircraft and pilots, as well as operating approval. To date, only two UAS models (the Scan Eagle and Aerovironment’s Puma) have been certified, and they can only fly in the Arctic. Public entities (federal, state and local governments and public universities) may apply for a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) The FAA reviews and approves UAS operations over densely-populated areas on a case-by-case basis.

Flying model aircraft solely for hobby or recreational reasons does not require FAA approval. However, hobbyists are advised to operate their aircraft in accordance with the agency's model aircraft guidelines (see Advisory Circular 91-57). In the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-95, Sec 336), Congress exempted model aircraft from new rules or regulations provided the aircraft are operated "in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization."

The FAA and the Academy of Model Aeronautics recently signed a first-ever agreement that formalizes a working relationship and establishes a partnership for advancing safe model UAS operations. This agreement also lays the ground work for enacting the model aircraft provisions of Public Law 112-95, Sec 336. Modelers operating under the provisions of P.L. 112-95, Sec 336 must comply with the safety guidelines of a nationwide community-based organization.

Myth #4: There are too many commercial UAS operations for the FAA to stop.

Fact—The FAA has to prioritize its safety responsibilities, but the agency is monitoring UAS operations closely. Many times, the FAA learns about suspected commercial UAS operations via a complaint from the public or other businesses. The agency occasionally discovers such operations through the news media or postings on internet sites.  When the FAA discovers apparent unauthorized UAS operations, the agency has a number of enforcement tools available to address these operations, including a verbal warning, a warning letter, and an order to stop the operation.

Myth #5: Commercial UAS operations will be OK after September 30, 2015.

Fact—In the 2012 FAA reauthorization legislation, Congress told the FAA to come up with a plan for “safe integration” of UAS by September 30, 2015. Safe integration will be incremental. The agency is still developing regulations, policies and standards that will cover a wide variety of UAS users, and expects to publish a proposed rule for small UAS – under about 55 pounds – later this year. That proposed rule will likely include provisions for commercial operations.

Myth #6: The FAA is lagging behind other countries in approving commercial drones.

Fact – This comparison is flawed.  The United States has the busiest, most complex airspace in the world, including many general aviation aircraft that we must consider when planning UAS integration, because those same airplanes and small UAS may occupy the same airspace.

Developing all the rules and standards we need is a very complex task, and we want to make sure we get it right the first time.  We want to strike the right balance of requirements for UAS to help foster growth in an emerging industry with a wide range of potential uses, but also keep all airspace users and people on the ground safe.

Myth #7: The FAA predicts as many as 30,000 drones by 2030.

Fact—That figure is outdated. It was an estimate in the FAA’s 2011 Aerospace Forecast. Since then, the agency has refined its prediction to focus on the area of greatest expected growth. The FAA currently estimates as many as 7,500 small commercial UAS may be in use by 2018, assuming the necessary regulations are in place. The number may be updated when the agency publishes the proposed rule on small UAS later this year

(Link: https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=76240)

The rules for operating an unmanned aircraft depend on why you want to fly

*These rules are subject to waiver.

(Link: https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/)

The FAA suggests that civilian drone operators should:

Read the Summary of the Small UAS Rule (PDF) (https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf)

Register their UAS (https://registermyuas.faa.gov/)
To register you must be 13 years of age or older

Become a UAS pilot (https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/fly_for_work_business/becoming_a_pilot/)

Request a Waiver/Airspace Authorization (https://www.faa.gov/uas/request_waiver/)

Report an Accident (https://www.faa.gov/uas/report_accident/)s

SUMMARY OF SMALL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT RULE (PART 107

Operational Limitations

Unmanned aircraft must weigh less than 55 lbs. (25 kg).

Visual line-of-sight (VLOS) only; the unmanned aircraft must remain within VLOS of the remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small UAS. Alternatively, the unmanned aircraft must remain within VLOS of the visual observer.

At all times the small unmanned aircraft must remain close enough to the remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small UAS for those people to be capable of seeing the aircraft with vision unaided by any device other than corrective lenses.

Small unmanned aircraft may not operate over any persons not directly participating in the operation, not under a covered structure, and not inside a covered stationary vehicle.

Daylight-only operations, or civil twilight (30 minutes before official sunrise to 30 minutes after official sunset, local time) with appropriate anti-collision lighting.

Must yield right of way to other aircraft.

May use visual observer (VO) but not required.

First-person view camera cannot satisfy “see-and-avoid” requirement but can be used as long as requirement is satisfied in other ways.

Maximum groundspeed of 100 mph (87 knots).

Maximum altitude of 400 feet above ground level (AGL) or, if higher than 400 feet AGL, remain within 400 feet of a structure.

Minimum weather visibility of 3 miles from control station.

Operations in Class B, C, D and E airspace are allowed with the required ATC permission.

Operations in Class G airspace are allowed without ATC permission.

No person may act as a remote pilot in command or VO for more than one unmanned aircraft operation at one time.

No operations from a moving aircraft.

No operations from a moving vehicle unless the operation is over a sparsely populated area.

No careless or reckless operations.

No carriage of hazardous materials.

Requires preflight inspection by the remote pilot in command.

A person may not operate a small unmanned aircraft if he or she knows or has reason to know of any physical or mental condition that would interfere with the safe operation of a small UAS.

Foreign-registered small unmanned aircraft are allowed to operate under part 107 if they satisfy the requirements of part 375.

External load operations are allowed if the object being carried by the unmanned aircraft is securely attached and does not adversely affect the flight characteristics or controllability of the aircraft.

Transportation of property for compensation or hire allowed provided that- o The aircraft, including its attached systems, payload and cargo weigh less than 55 pounds total;

The flight is conducted within visual line of sight and not from a moving vehicle or aircraft; and

The flight occurs wholly within the bounds of a State and does not involve transport between (1) Hawaii and another place in Hawaii through airspace outside Hawaii; (2) the District of Columbia and another place in the District of Columbia; or (3) a territory or possession of the United States and another place in the same territory or possession.

Most of the restrictions discussed above are waivable if the applicant demonstrates that his or her operation can safely be conducted under the terms of a certificate of waiver.

Remote Pilot in Command Certification and Responsibilities

Establishes a remote pilot in command position.

A person operating a small UAS must either hold a remote pilot airman certificate with a small UAS rating or be under the direct supervision of a person who does hold a remote pilot certificate (remote pilot in command).

To qualify for a remote pilot certificate, a person must:

Demonstrate aeronautical knowledge by either:

Passing an initial aeronautical knowledge test at an FAA-approved knowledge testing center; or

Hold a part 61 pilot certificate other than student pilot, complete a flight review within the previous 24 months, and complete a small UAS online training course provided by the FAA.

Be vetted by the Transportation Security Administration.

Be at least 16 years old.

Part 61 pilot certificate holders may obtain a temporary remote pilot certificate immediately upon submission of their application for a permanent certificate. Other applicants will obtain a temporary remote pilot certificate upon successful completion of TSA security vetting. The FAA anticipates that it will be able to issue a temporary remote pilot certificate within 10 business days after receiving a completed remote pilot certificate application.

Until international standards are developed, foreign-certificated UAS pilots will be required to obtain an FAA-issued remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating.

A remote pilot in command must:

Make available to the FAA, upon request, the small UAS for inspection or testing, and any associated documents/records required to be kept under the rule.

Report to the FAA within 10 days of any operation that results in at least serious injury, loss of consciousness, or property damage of at least $500.

Conduct a preflight inspection, to include specific aircraft and control station systems checks, to ensure the small UAS is in a condition for safe operation.

Ensure that the small unmanned aircraft complies with the existing registration requirements specified in § 91.203(a)(2).

A remote pilot in command may deviate from the requirements of this rule in response to an in-flight emergency.

(Link: https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf)

Becoming a Pilot

Remote Pilot Knowledge Test Prep

Suggested Study Materials

Airmen Certification Standards (PDF)

Knowledge Test Instructions (PDF)

Knowledge Test Study Guide (PDF)

Knowledge Test Sample Questions (PDF)

Part 107 Advisory Circular (PDF)

Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge

Quick Links

Part 107 Course on FAA Safety Team website

FAA Integrated Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application system (IACRA)

Requirements and Process for Becoming a Pilot

Instructions for first-time remote pilots

Instructions for part 61 pilot certificate holders

First-Time Pilots

To become a pilot you must:

Be at least 16 years old

Be able to read, speak, write, and understand English (exceptions may be made if the person is unable to meet one of these requirements for a medical reason, such as hearing impairment)

Be in a physical and mental condition to safely operate a small UAS

Pass the initial aeronautical knowledge exam at an FAA-approved knowledge testing center

Pilot certificate Requirements

Must be easily accessible by the remote pilot during all UAS operations

Valid for 2 years – certificate holders must pass a recurrent knowledge test every two years

Application Process

1. Schedule an appointment with a Knowledge Testing Center (KTC), which administer initial and recurrent FAA knowledge exams a.View the list of Knowledge Testing Centers (PDF) to find one near you.

b. Applicants must bring government-issued photo ID to their test

2. Pass the initial aeronautical knowledge test – initial knowledge test areas include: a. Applicable regulations relating to small unmanned aircraft system rating privileges, limitations, and flight operation

b. Airspace classification and operating requirements, and flight restrictions affecting small unmanned aircraft operation

c. Aviation weather sources and effects of weather on small unmanned aircraft performance

d. Small unmanned aircraft loading and performance

e. Emergency procedures

f. Crew resource management

g. Radio communication procedures

h. Determining the performance of small unmanned aircraft

i. Physiological effects of drugs and alcohol

j. Aeronautical decision-making and judgment

k. Airport operations

l. Maintenance and preflight inspection procedures

3. Complete FAA Form 8710-13 for a remote pilot certificate (FAA Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application) using the electronic FAA Integrated Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application system (IACRA)* a.Register using the FAA IACRA system

b. Login with username and password

c. Click on "Start New Application" and 1) Application Type "Pilot", 2) Certifications "Remote Pilot", 3) Other Path Information, 4) Start Application

d. Follow application prompts

e. When prompted, enter the 17-digit Knowledge Test Exam ID (NOTE: it may take up to 48 hours from the test date for the knowledge test to appear in IACRA)

f. Sign the application electronically and submit to the Registry for processing.

4. A confirmation email will be sent when an applicant has completed the TSA security background check. This email will provide instructions for printing a copy of the temporary remote pilot certificate from IACRA.

5. A permanent remote pilot certificate will be sent via mail once all other FAA-internal processing is complete.

* Applicants who do not wish to complete FAA Form 8710-13 online may choose the paper process. Please note that the processing time will be longer if a paper application is used since it requires in-person approval and signature by a designated pilot examiner (DPE), an airman certification representative (ACR), or an FAA-certificated flight instructor (CFI), and must then be mailed to a Flight Stansdards District Office (FSDO) for final review and signature. Additionally, a temporary remote pilot certificate will not be provided to the applicant.

Instructions for completing the paper application process may be found in Chapter 6, Section 4 of the Part 107 Advisory Circular.

(Link: https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/fly_for_work_business/becoming_a_pilot/)

Request a Waiver/Airspace Authorization Small Unmanned Aircraft System (sUAS)

It is important to review the following documents before requesting a waiver and/or airspace authorization:

Waiver/Airspace Authorization instructions (PDF)

Performance Based Standards (PDF)

This form should only be used to request waivers or airspace authorizations under Title 14 CFR Part 107; it is not for modelers or hobbyists flying in accordance with the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (P.L. 112-95, Section 336).

UAS operators who want to fly outside the requirements of the Small UAS Rule (Part 107) may request a waiver and/or airspace authorization using the form below.

Applicants are encouraged to review the form instructions (PDF) and the list of regulations subject to waiver prior to submitting this form. Please provide all required information in order to facilitate evaluation of your request.

(Link: https://www.faa.gov/uas/request_waiver/)

Reporting an Accident

The FAA requires notification of certain sUAS accidents. The applicable FAA regulation states:

§ 107.9 Accident Reporting. No later than 10 days after an operation that meets the criteria of either paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, a remote pilot in command must report to the Federal Aviation Administration in a manner acceptable to the Administrator, any operation of the small unmanned aircraft involving at least:

a. Serious injury to any person or any loss of consciousness; or

b. Damage to any property, other than the small unmanned aircraft, unless one of the following conditions is satisfied: 1.The cost of repair (including materials and labor) does not exceed $500; or

2. The fair market value of the property does not exceed $500 in the event of total loss.

This report is for small UAS accidents only. If you wish to report unsafe operation of an Unmanned Aircraft, please contact your FAA Regional Operations Center.

The questionnaire is a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The Federal Aviation Administration will use the information you provide in response to the following questions to regulate and promote safety in air commerce, in accordance with its statutory authority 49 U.S.C § 44701. The following questions will take approximately 10 minutes to complete. You are not required to respond to this collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

(Link: https://www.faa.gov/uas/report_accident/)

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Frequently Asked Questions/Help

General

What is an unmanned aircraft system (UAS)?

An unmanned aircraft system is an unmanned aircraft and the equipment necessary for the safe and efficient operation of that aircraft. An unmanned aircraft is a component of a UAS. It is defined by statute as an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft (Public Law 112-95, Section 331(8)).

2. Is a UAS the same as a model aircraft?

Congress defined a "model aircraft" as a UAS that meets all of the following:

Is capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere

Is flown within visual line-of-sight of the person operating it

Is flown for hobby or recreational purposes

3. Who do I contact if my question isn't answered on the UAS website?

 We encourage you to first read all of the information on the website and browse our Frequently Asked Questions. If you still have questions or concerns, you may contact the FAA's UAS Integration Office via uashelp@faa.gov or by calling 844-FLY-MY-UA.

4. Is the Small UAS Rule effective?

Yes. The Small UAS Rule came into effect on August 29, 2016.

Flying for Work or Business (non-recreational)

How do I fly a UAS for work or business purposes?

There are three ways to fly a UAS for work, business, or non-recreational reasons:

Following the requirements in the Small UAS rule (Part 107)

Following the rules in your Section 333 grant of exemption

Obtain an airworthiness certificate for the aircraft

2. I am part of a Federal/State/local government office – how can I fly a UAS to support a specific mission e.g. search and rescue?

You may either operate under the Part 107 rule, or you may be eligible to conduct public aircraft operations for which you would need to apply for a public Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) for certain operations.

3. Can news media fly a UAS to shoot stories or cover breaking news?

 Media companies may use a UAS, but must adhere to the requirements of their Section 333 grant of exemption or the Small UAS Rule (Part 107). Organizations may request a waiver under Part 107 to fly over people, and will need to provide sufficient mitigations to ensure public safety.

4. What options do I have if my operation is not permitted under these rules (Part 107)?

If you are operating an unmanned aircraft that weighs less than 55 pounds, generally you may apply for a Part 107 waiver (special permission) to conduct your operation. Your waiver application must outline how you intend to safely conduct your proposed operation, including any additional risk mitigation strategies you may use. An online portal will be available through www.faa.gov/uas for UAS operators to apply for waivers to applicable parts of the rule. Get more information in the FAQ section on Permissions, Authorizations, Waivers, and Exemptions.

5. Is package delivery allowed under the small UAS rule (Part 107)? Part 107 permits the transportation of property for compensation or hire, provided the operator complies with all the provisions of the rule, including that the operator must keep the UAS within his/her sight, the flight is conducted within visual line-of-sight and not from a moving vehicle, external loads must be securely attached and cannot adversely affect the flight characteristics or controllability of the aircraft, and the aircraft with payload must weigh less than 55 lbs. at takeoff. The transportation must also occur wholly within the bounds of a state and may not involve transportation of property between: (1) Hawaii and another place in Hawaii through airspace outside of Hawaii; (2) the District of Columbia and another place in the District of Columbia; or (3) a territory or possession of the United States and another place in the same territory or possession.

Flying for Fun (recreational or hobby)

What is the definition of recreational or hobby use of a UAS?

Recreational or hobby UAS use is flying for enjoyment and not for work, business purposes, or for compensation or hire. In the FAA's Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, the FAA relied on the ordinary, dictionary definition of these terms. UAS use for hobby is a "pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation." UAS use for recreation is "refreshment of strength and spirits after work; a means of refreshment or division."

2. Do I need permission from the FAA to fly a UAS for recreation or as a hobby?

There are two ways for recreational or hobby UAS fliers to operate in the National Airspace System in accordance with the law and/or FAA regulations. Each of the two options has specific requirements that the UAS operator must follow. The decision as to which option to follow is up to the individual operator.

Option #1. Fly in accordance with the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (Public Law 112-95 Section 336). Under this rule, operators must:

a. Fly for hobby or recreational purposes only

b. Follow a community-based set of safety guidelines

c. Fly the UAS within visual line-of-sight

d. Give way to manned aircraft

e. Provide prior notification to the airport and air traffic control tower, if one is present, when flying within 5 miles of an airport

f. Fly UAS that weigh no more than 55 lbs. unless certified by a community-based organization

g. Register the aircraft (UAS over 0.55 lbs. and less than 55 lbs. can be registered online at registermyuas.faa.gov; UAS 55 lbs. or greater must be registered through the FAA's paper-based process)

For more information Visit our "Fly for Fun" webpage for safety rules and guidelines that apply to recreational or hobby UAS operations under the Special Rule for Model Aircraft.

Option #2. Fly in accordance with the FAA's Small UAS Rule (Part 107). This requires operators to:

a. Obtain a remote pilot certificate or be under the direct supervision of someone who holds such a certificate.

b. Register the aircraft as a non-modeler at registermyuas.faa.gov

c. Follow all the operating rules in accordance with the regulation

For more information visit our "Fly for Work" webpage for rules that apply to UAS operations under Part 107.

3. Does the new Small UAS Rule (part 107) apply to recreational UAS operations?

Part 107 does not apply to UAS flown strictly for fun (hobby or recreational purposes) as long as these unmanned aircraft are flown in accordance with the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (Section 336 of P.L. 112-95). Visit our "Fly for Fun" webpage for safety rules and guidelines that apply to recreational UAS operations. The small UAS rule codifies the provisions of section 336 in part 101 of the FAA's regulations, which will prohibit operating a UAS in manner that endangers the safety of the National Airspace System.

4. How do I know where it is OK to fly and where it is not OK to fly?

The FAA has developed a mobile app called B4UFLY to help recreational UAS operators know whether there are any restrictions or requirements where they want to fly. Additional guidance is also available in the "Where to Fly" section of this website.

5. Can I fly a model aircraft or UAS over a stadium or sporting events for hobby or recreation?

No. Federal law restricts UAS from flying at or below 3,000 AGL within a 3 nautical mile radius of any stadium with a seating capacity of 30,000 or more people during a Major League Baseball (MLB), regular or post-season National Football League (NFL), or NCAA Division I football game, or major motor speedway event. This temporary flight restriction applies to the entire U.S. domestic National Airspace System, and takes effect starting one hour before the scheduled event time until one hour after the event concludes. The FAA gives further detail in a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM.)

6. Do I have to notify all airports within five miles of where I want to fly recreationally?

Yes, you must contact any airports (including heliports and sea-based airports) and air traffic control towers within five miles of your proposed area of operations if flying under the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (Public Law 112-95, Section 336).

7. Can an airport operator object to model aircraft flights near an airport?

Yes, an airport operator can object to the proposed use of a model aircraft within five miles of an airport if the proposed activity would endanger the safety of the airspace. However, the airport operator cannot prohibit or prevent the model aircraft operator from operating within five miles of the airport. Unsafe flying in spite of the objection of an airport operator may be evidence that the operator was endangering the safety of the National Airspace System. Additionally, the UAS operator must comply with any applicable airspace requirements.

Aeronautical Knowledge Testing/Remote Pilot Certification

I already have a pilot certificate issued under part 61. Do I need to obtain a remote pilot certificate to fly a UAS under the Small UAS Rule (Part 107)?

Yes. To act as a remote pilot in command under Part 107, a person must have a remote pilot certificate. However, part 61 pilot certificate holders who have completed a flight review within the past 24 months may elect to take an online training course focusing on UAS-specific areas of knowledge instead of the aeronautical knowledge test. The online training for current pilot certificate holders is available at www.faasafety.gov. All other members of the public must take and pass the initial aeronautical knowledge test to obtain a remote pilot certificate.

2. How can I find the closest FAA-approved Knowledge Testing Center to me?

A list of Knowledge Testing Centers (PDF) is available. You may also contact the Knowledge Test Service Providers directly to schedule your test:

CATS: Call 800-947-4228

PSI: Call 800-211-2754

3. Where can I find study materials for the aeronautical knowledge test?

Study materials are available online. Applicants are encouraged to review the Airman Certification Standards (ACS) for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (PDF), the Remote Pilot Study Guide (PDF), and the online sample questions (PDF) before taking the Knowledge Test.

4. How much does it cost to get a remote pilot certificate?

Knowledge Testing Centers charge approximately $150 to people seeking to take the initial aeronautical knowledge test.

5. Will the FAA recognize any previous UAS training I've taken?

No. However, prior military or civil aviation-related training may be helpful to new applicants preparing for the aeronautical knowledge test. There is no required practical training to fly under the Part 107 rule or to get a remote pilot certificate.

6. Once I complete the aeronautical knowledge test at one of the approved centers, what is the process for obtaining my pilot certificate from the FAA?

After you have passed the initial aeronautical knowledge test, you will then complete the FAA Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application (known as IACRA) to receive a remote pilot certificate. IACRA is a web-based certification/rating application that ensures you meet the requirements and electronically submits the application to the FAA's Airman Registry. Applications should be validated within 10 days. Applicants will then receive instructions for printing their temporary airman certificate, which is good for 120 days. The FAA will then mail you your permanent Remote Pilot Certificate within that 120 days.

7. What happens if I fail the aeronautical knowledge test? How soon can I retake the test?

You may retake the test after 14 days.

8. What do I need to bring with me to take the aeronautical knowledge test?

All applicants must bring a valid and current form of identification that includes their photo, date of birth, signature, and physical residential address. Acceptable forms of identification include.

Airspace/Airports

How can I tell what class of airspace I'm in?

Under the Small UAS Rule (part 107) (PDF), operators must pass an aeronautical knowledge test to obtain a Remote Pilot Certificate. This test will quiz prospective operators on how to use aeronautical charts to determine airspace classifications.

For reference, aeronautical charts and a Chart User's Guide are also available on the FAA's website. These charts are the FAA's official source of airspace classifications.

Additionally, the FAA's B4UFLY app, which is designed to help recreational UAS flyers know where it's safe to fly, shows users if they are in controlled airspace (Class B, C, D, or E airspaces) in a given or planned location. If the app's status indicator is yellow ("Use Caution – Check Restrictions"), a user is in uncontrolled (Class G) airspace.

2. How do I request permission from Air Traffic Control to operate in Class B, C, D, or E airspace? Is there a way to request permission electronically?

You can request airspace authorization through an online web portal available at www.faa.gov/uas/request_waiver.

3. Can I contact my local air traffic control tower or facility directly to request airspace permission?

No. All airspace permission requests must be made through the online portal.

4. I'm an airport operator and have questions about recreational UAS flying near my airport.

Read the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about the Use of Model Aircraft near an Airport for more information.

Permissions, Authorizations, Waivers, and Exemptions

Do I need a Section 333 exemption, or any other kind of special permission, to fly now that the Small UAS Rule is effective?

If you are operating a small UAS, once you have obtained your remote pilot certificate, and registered your aircraft, you can fly in Class G airspace as long as you follow all the operating requirements in the small UAS Rule (Part 107).

However, you will need special permission if you want to fly in any controlled airspace (PDF) (Classes B, C, D, or E), or if you want to deviate from any of the operational requirements contained in the Small UAS Rule (Part 107), including flying at night, or over people). Additionally, Part 107 does not apply to operations using UAS that weigh 55 lbs. or more. These operations will still require authorization through the Section 333 exemption process.

2. What happens to my Section 333 exemption now that the Small UAS Rule is effective?

Your Section 333 exemption remains valid until it expires. You may continue to fly following the conditions and limitations in your exemption. If your operation can be conducted under the requirements in the Part 107, you may elect to operate under Part 107. However, if you wish to operate under part 107, you must obtain a remote pilot certificate and follow all the operating rules of Part 107.

3. Can my blanket Section 333 Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) transfer to my UAS operation under part 107?

No. If you fly following the requirements of Part 107, you must comply with the operating provisions specified in part 107. Part 107 limits your altitude to 400 feet unless your unmanned aircraft is flying within 400 feet of a structure (in which case you may not fly higher than 400 feet above the top of that structure). Part 107 also limits your operation to Class G airspace unless you obtain FAA permission prior to the operation to fly in controlled airspace. The blanket COA issued with your Section 333 exemption is only valid if you continue flying using the conditions and limitations in your exemption.

4. Am I better off flying under the Part 107 rule or my Section 333 exemption?

It depends on what you want to do. UAS operators need to compare the conditions and limitations in their individual Section 333 exemption to the operating requirements in the Part 107 rule to determine which operating rules best address their needs.

5. Can I use the new airmen certification to fulfill the pilot-in-command requirement of my Section 333 exemption?

No. You cannot "mix and match" the conditions and limitations in your Section 333 exemption with the Part 107 rule operating requirements. Section 333 exemption holders have two choices:

a. Continue to fly using their Section 333 exemption, following the conditions and limitations in the exemption

OR

b. Get a remote pilot certificate and start flying under the Part 107 rule, following all operating rules and requirements.

6. Is the new Small UAS Rule retroactively applied to 333 exemption holders?

No. Current Section 333 exemption holders have two choices:

a. Continue to fly using their Section 333 exemption, following the conditions and limitations in the exemption

OR

b. Get a remote pilot certificate and start flying under the Part 107 rule, following all operating rules and requirements of Part 107.

7. I already applied for a Section 333 exemption or have a pending request for amendment. What do I do?

 The FAA has posted a letter to your docket folder on www.regulations.gov. If your operation can be conducted under the Small UAS Rule (Part 107), your petition will be closed out. If your operation requires a waiver to Part 107 or cannot be conducted under the Rule, the FAA will contact you with specific information about the status of your Section 333 petition.

8. Will the FAA be issuing renewals for current Section 333 exemptions?

For the most part, no if your operation can be flown under the Part 107 rule, the FAA will not renew your exemption once it expires. If you cannot operate under the requirements of the Small UAS Rule, you will need to renew your Section 333 petition once it expires.

9. How do I apply for a waiver to the requirements of the Part 107 rule?

 Waivers are special permissions the FAA issues to authorize certain types of UAS operations not covered under the Part 107 rule. An online portal will be available through www.faa.gov/uas for people to apply for these waivers.

10. Once I submit my waiver request, how long before the FAA makes a decision? And how will I be notified?

 Waiver processing times will vary depending on the complexity of the request. We encourage applicants to submit waiver requests well in advance of when they need a waiver – 90 days is strongly encouraged. Applicants will be notified via email about the outcome of their waiver processing.

11. Will I still need a COA to fly under the Part 107 rule?

 If you already have a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA), you can continue to fly under those COA requirements until it expires. Section 333 exemption holders may operate under the terms of their exemptions and COAs until they expire. Public aircraft operators such as law enforcement agencies, state or local governments, or public universities may continue to operate under the terms of their COAs.

If you don't already have a Section 333 exemption and associated COA, and you are not conducting a public aircraft operation, you probably don't need one now that Part 107 is out. Civil UAS operations flown under the new rules do not require the UAS operator to get a COA.

Please contact the FAA's Air Traffic Organization for more information.

(Link: https://www.faa.gov/uas/faqs/)

Appendix A: Presidential Memorandum: Promoting Economic Competitiveness While Safeguarding Privacy, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties in Domestic Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems

MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

SUBJECT: Promoting Economic Competitiveness While Safeguarding Privacy, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties in Domestic Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) technology continues to improve rapidly, and increasingly UAS are able to perform a variety of missions with greater operational flexibility and at a lower cost than comparable manned aircraft. A wide spectrum of domestic users -- including industry, private citizens, and Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial governments -- are using or expect to use these systems, which may play a transformative role in fields as diverse as urban infrastructure management, farming, public safety, coastal security, military training, search and rescue, and disaster response.

The Congress recognized the potential wide-ranging benefits of UAS operations within the United States in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-95), which requires a plan to safely integrate civil UAS into the National Airspace System (NAS) by September 30, 2015. As compared to manned aircraft, UAS may provide lower-cost operation and augment existing capabilities while reducing risks to human life. Estimates suggest the positive economic impact to U.S. industry of the integration of UAS into the NAS could be substantial and likely will grow for the foreseeable future.

As UAS are integrated into the NAS, the Federal Government will take steps to ensure that the integration takes into account not only our economic competitiveness and public safety, but also the privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties concerns these systems may raise.

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish transparent principles that govern the Federal Government's use of UAS in the NAS, and to promote the responsible use of this technology in the private and commercial sectors, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. UAS Policies and Procedures for Federal Government Use. The Federal Government currently operates UAS in the United States for several purposes, including to manage Federal lands, monitor wildfires, conduct scientific research, monitor our borders, support law enforcement, and effectively train our military. As with information collected by the Federal Government using any technology, where UAS is the platform for collection, information must be collected, used, retained, and disseminated consistent with the Constitution, Federal law, and other applicable regulations and policies. Agencies must, for example, comply with the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a) (the "Privacy Act"), which, among other things, restricts the collection and dissemination of individuals' information that is maintained in systems of records, including personally identifiable information (PII), and permits individuals to seek access to and amendment of records.

(a) Privacy Protections. Particularly in light of the diverse potential uses of UAS in the NAS, expected advancements in UAS technologies, and the anticipated increase in UAS use in the future, the Federal Government shall take steps to ensure that privacy protections and policies relative to UAS continue to keep pace with these developments. Accordingly, agencies shall, prior to deployment of new UAS technology and at least every 3 years, examine their existing UAS policies and procedures relating to the collection, use, retention, and dissemination of information obtained by UAS, to ensure that privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties are protected. Agencies shall update their policies and procedures, or issue new policies and procedures, as necessary. In addition to requiring compliance with the Privacy Act in applicable circumstances, agencies that collect information through UAS in the NAS shall ensure that their policies and procedures with respect to such information incorporate the following requirements:

(i) Collection and Use. Agencies shall only collect information using UAS, or use UAS-collected information, to the extent that such collection or use is consistent with and relevant to an authorized purpose.

 (ii) Retention. Information collected using UAS that may contain PII shall not be retained for more than 180 days unless retention of the information is determined to be necessary to an authorized mission of the retaining agency, is maintained in a system of records covered by the Privacy Act, or is required to be retained for a longer period by any other applicable law or regulation.

 (iii) Dissemination. UAS-collected information that is not maintained in a system of records covered by the Privacy Act shall not be disseminated outside of the agency unless dissemination is required by law, or fulfills an authorized purpose and complies with agency requirements.

(b) Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Protections. To protect civil rights and civil liberties, agencies shall:

(i) ensure that policies are in place to prohibit the collection, use, retention, or dissemination of data in any manner that would violate the First Amendment or in any manner that would discriminate against persons based upon their ethnicity, race, gender, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity, in violation of law;

 (ii) ensure that UAS activities are performed in a manner consistent with the Constitution and applicable laws, Executive Orders, and other Presidential directives; and

 (iii) ensure that adequate procedures are in place to receive, investigate, and address, as appropriate, privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties complaints.

(c) Accountability. To provide for effective oversight, agencies shall:

(i) ensure that oversight procedures for agencies' UAS use, including audits or assessments, comply with existing agency policies and regulations;

 (ii) verify the existence of rules of conduct and training for Federal Government personnel and contractors who work on UAS programs, and procedures for reporting suspected cases of misuse or abuse of UAS technologies;

 (iii) establish policies and procedures, or confirm that policies and procedures are in place, that provide meaningful oversight of individuals who have access to sensitive information (including any PII) collected using UAS;

 (iv) ensure that any data-sharing agreements or policies, data use policies, and record management policies applicable to UAS conform to applicable laws, regulations, and policies;

 (v) establish policies and procedures, or confirm that policies and procedures are in place, to authorize the use of UAS in response to a request for UAS assistance in support of Federal, State, local, tribal, or territorial government operations; and

 (vi) require that State, local, tribal, and territorial government recipients of Federal grant funding for the purchase or use of UAS for their own operations have in place policies and procedures to safeguard individuals' privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties prior to expending such funds.

(d) Transparency. To promote transparency about their UAS activities within the NAS, agencies that use UAS shall, while not revealing information that could reasonably be expected to compromise law enforcement or national security:

(i) provide notice to the public regarding where the agency's UAS are authorized to operate in the NAS;

 (ii) keep the public informed about the agency's UAS program as well as changes that would significantly affect privacy, civil rights, or civil liberties; and

 (iii) make available to the public, on an annual basis, a general summary of the agency's UAS operations during the previous fiscal year, to include a brief description of types or categories of missions flown, and the number of times the agency provided assistance to other agencies, or to State, local, tribal, or territorial governments.

(e) Reports. Within 180 days of the date of this memorandum, agencies shall provide the President with a status report on the implementation of this section. Within 1 year of the date of this memorandum, agencies shall publish information on how to access their publicly available policies and procedures implementing this section.

Sec. 2. Multi-stakeholder Engagement Process. In addition to the Federal uses of UAS described in section 1 of this memorandum, the combination of greater operational flexibility, lower capital requirements, and lower operating costs could allow UAS to be a transformative technology in the commercial and private sectors for fields as diverse as urban infrastructure management, farming, and disaster response. Although these opportunities will enhance American economic competitiveness, our Nation must be mindful of the potential implications for privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties. The Federal Government is committed to promoting the responsible use of this technology in a way that does not diminish rights and freedoms.

(a) There is hereby established a multi-stakeholder engagement process to develop and communicate best practices for privacy, accountability, and transparency issues regarding commercial and private UAS use in the NAS. The process will include stakeholders from the private sector.

(b) Within 90 days of the date of this memorandum, the Department of Commerce, through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, and in consultation with other interested agencies, will initiate this multi-stakeholder engagement process to develop a framework regarding privacy, accountability, and transparency for commercial and private UAS use. For this process, commercial and private use includes the use of UAS for commercial purposes as civil aircraft, even if the use would qualify a UAS as a public aircraft under 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(41) and 40125. The process shall not focus on law enforcement or other noncommercial governmental use.

Sec. 3. Definitions. As used in this memorandum:

(a) "Agencies" means executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government that conduct UAS operations in the NAS.

(b) "Federal Government use" means operations in which agencies operate UAS in the NAS. Federal Government use includes agency UAS operations on behalf of another agency or on behalf of a State, local, tribal, or territorial government, or when a nongovernmental entity operates UAS on behalf of an agency.

(c) "National Airspace System" means the common network of U.S. airspace; air navigation facilities, equipment, and services; airports or landing areas; aeronautical charts, information, and services; related rules, regulations, and procedures; technical information; and manpower and material. Included in this definition are system components shared jointly by the Departments of Defense, Transportation, and Homeland Security.

(d) "Unmanned Aircraft System" means an unmanned aircraft (an aircraft that is operated without direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft) and associated elements (including communication links and components that control the unmanned aircraft) that are required for the pilot or system operator in command to operate safely and efficiently in the NAS.

(e) "Personally identifiable information" refers to information that can be used to distinguish or trace an individual's identity, either alone or when combined with other personal or identifying information that is linked or linkable to a specific individual, as set forth in Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M-07-16 (May 22, 2007) and Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M-10-23 (June 25, 2010).

Sec. 4. General Provisions.

(a) This memorandum complements and is not intended to supersede existing laws and policies for UAS operations in the NAS, including the National Strategy for Aviation Security and its supporting plans, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) Integration of Civil UAS in the NAS Roadmap, and the FAA's UAS Comprehensive Plan.

(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law, and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or

 (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(d) Independent agencies are strongly encouraged to comply with this memorandum.

(e) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(f) The Secretary of Commerce is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register

Appendix B: Voluntary Best Practices for UAS Privacy, Transparency, and Accountability

 I. INTRODUCTION

The benefits of commercial and private unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) are substantial. Technology has moved forward rapidly, and what used to be considered toys are quickly becoming powerful commercial tools that can provide enormous benefits in terms of safety and efficiency. UAS integration will have a significant positive economic impact in the United States. Whether UAS are performing search and rescue missions, allowing farmers to be more efficient and environmentally friendly, inspecting power lines and cell towers, gathering news and enhancing the public’s access to information, performing aerial photography to sell real estate and provide insurance services, surveying and mapping areas for public policy, delivering medicine to rural locations, providing wireless internet, enhancing construction site safety, or more—society is only just beginning to realize the full potential of UAS. UAS technology is already bringing substantial benefits to people’s daily lives, including cheaper goods, innovative services, safer infrastructure, recreational uses, and greater economic activity. Inevitably, creative minds will devise many more UAS uses that will save lives, save money and make our society more productive.

However, the very characteristics that make UAS so promising for commercial and non-commercial uses, including their small size, maneuverability and capacity to carry various kinds of recording or sensory devices, can raise privacy concerns. As a result, individuals may be apprehensive about the adoption of this technology into everyday life. In order to ensure that UAS and the exciting possibilities that come with them live up to their full potential, operators should use this technology in a responsible, ethical, and respectful way. This should include a commitment to transparency, privacy and accountability.

The purpose of this document is to outline and describe voluntary Best Practices that UAS operators could take to advance UAS privacy, transparency and accountability for the private and commercial use of UAS.1 UAS operators may implement these Best Practices in a variety of ways, depending on their circumstances and technology uses, and evolving privacy expectations. In some cases, these Best Practices are meant to go beyond existing law and they do not—and are not meant to—create a legal standard of care by which the activities of any particular UAS operator should be judged. These Best Practices are also not intended to serve as a template for future statutory or regulatory obligations, in part because doing so would make these standards mandatory (not voluntary) and could therefore raise First Amendment concerns.

II. APPLICABILITY

These voluntary Best Practices for UAS focus on data collected via a UAS, which includes both commercial and non-commercial UAS. The only section applicable to newsgatherers and news reporting organizations is Section V considering that their activity is strongly protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. There is also an Appendix entitled, “Guidelines for Neighborly Drone Use” that is intended to be a quick and easy reference guide for recreational UAS operators.

These Best Practices do not apply to data collected by other means—for instance, a company need not apply these Best Practices to data collected via the company’s website. These Best Practices do not apply to the use of UAS for purposes of emergency response, including safety and rescue responses.

Nothing in these Best Practices shall:

Be construed to limit or diminish freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution;

Replace or take precedence over any local, state, or federal law or regulation;

Take precedence over contractual obligations or the representations of entities contracting UAS operators. However, entities contracting UAS operators should consider these Best Practices when setting the terms of a contract for UAS use, and UAS operators should consider these Best Practices when choosing to accept a contract for UAS use; or

Impede the safe operation of a UAS.

UAS operators should comply with all applicable laws and regulations. These Best Practices are intended to encourage positive conduct that complements legal compliance. Operators who are aware of other best practices that may apply specific guidance to technologies deployed on or through UAS should consider how to incorporate that guidance into their privacy and security policies and practices.

These Best Practices are also not intended to serve as a template for future statutory or regulatory obligations, in part because doing so would raise First Amendment issues.

Voluntary Best Practices for UAS Privacy, Transparency, and Accountability

III. DEFINITIONS

The term “consent” means words or conduct indicating permission. Consent must be informed and conduct indicating permission may be express or implied, depending on the context.

“Covered data” means information collected by a UAS that identifies a particular person. If data collected by UAS likely will not be linked to an individual’s name or other personally identifiable information, or if the data is altered so that a specific person is not recognizable, it is not covered data.

The term “data subjects” refers to the individuals about whom covered data is collected.

The terms “where practicable” and “reasonable” depend largely on the circumstances of the UAS operator, the sensitivity of data collected, and the context associated with a particular UAS operation.

IV. VOLUNTARY BEST PRACTICES

1. INFORM OTHERS OF YOUR USE OF UAS

1(a) Where practicable, UAS operators should make a reasonable effort to provide prior notice to individuals of the general timeframe and area that they may anticipate a UAS intentionally collecting covered data.

1(b) When a UAS operator anticipates that UAS use may result in collection of covered data, the operator should provide a privacy policy for such data appropriate to the size and complexity of the operator, or incorporate such a policy into an existing privacy policy. The privacy policy should be in place no later than the time of collection and made publicly available. The policy should include, as practicable:

(1) the purposes for which UAS will collect covered data;3

Voluntary Best Practices for UAS Privacy, Transparency, and Accountability

 (2) the kinds of covered data UAS will collect;

(3) information regarding any data retention and de-identification practices;4

(4) examples of the types of any entities with whom covered data will be shared;

(5) information on how to submit privacy and security complaints or concerns; and

(6) information describing practices in responding to law enforcement requests.

Material changes to the above should be incorporated into the privacy policy.

2. SHOW CARE WHEN OPERATING UAS OR COLLECTING AND STORING COVERED DATA

2(a) In the absence of a compelling need to do otherwise, or consent of the data subjects, UAS operators should avoid using UAS for the specific purpose of intentionally collecting covered data where the operator knows the data subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

2(b) In the absence of a compelling need to do otherwise, or consent of the data subjects, UAS operators should avoid using UAS for the specific purpose of persistent and continuous collection of covered data about individuals.

2(c) Where it will not impede the purpose for which the UAS is used or conflict with FAA guidelines, UAS operators should make a reasonable effort to minimize UAS operations over or within private property without consent of the property owner or without appropriate legal authority.

2(d) UAS operators should make a reasonable effort to avoid knowingly retaining covered data longer than reasonably necessary to fulfill a purpose as outlined in § IV.1(b). With the consent of the data subject, or in exceptional circumstances (such as legal disputes or safety incidents), such data may be held for a longer period.

2(e) UAS operators should establish a process, appropriate to the size and complexity of the operator, for receiving privacy or security concerns, including requests to delete, de-identify, or obfuscate the data subject’s covered data. Commercial operators should make this process easily accessible to the public, such as by placing points of contact on a company website.5

3. LIMIT THE USE AND SHARING OF COVERED DATA

3(a) UAS operators should not use covered data for the following purposes without consent: employment eligibility, promotion, or retention; credit eligibility; or health care treatment eligibility other than when expressly permitted by and subject to the requirements of a sector-specific regulatory framework.

3(b) UAS operators should make a reasonable effort to avoid using or sharing covered data for any purpose that is not included in the privacy policy covering UAS data.

3(c) If publicly disclosing covered data is not necessary to fulfill the purpose for which the UAS is used, UAS operators should avoid knowingly publicly disclosing data collected via UAS until the operator has undertaken a reasonable effort to obfuscate or de-identify covered data —unless the data subjects provide consent to the disclosure.

3(d) UAS operators should make a reasonable effort to avoid using or sharing covered data for marketing purposes unless the data subject provides consent to the use or disclosure. There is no restriction on the use or sharing of aggregated covered data as an input (e.g., statistical information) for broader marketing campaigns.

4. SECURE COVERED DATA

4(a) UAS operators should take measures to manage security risks of covered data by implementing a program that contains reasonable administrative, technical, and physical safeguards appropriate to the operator’s size and complexity, the nature and scope of its activities, and the sensitivity of the covered data.

Examples of appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards include those described in guidance from the Federal Trade Commission, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Cybersecurity Framework, and the International Organization for Standardization’s 27001 standard for information security management.

For example, UAS operators engaging in commercial activity should consider taking the following actions to secure covered data:

Having a written security policy with respect to the collection, use, storage, and dissemination of covered data appropriate to the size and complexity of the operator and the sensitivity of the data collected and retained.6

Making a reasonable effort to regularly monitor systems for breach and data security risks.

Making a reasonable effort to provide security training to employees with access to covered data.

Making a reasonable effort to permit only authorized individuals to access covered data.

5. MONITOR AND COMPLY WITH EVOLVING FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL UAS LAWS

5(a) UAS operators should ensure compliance with evolving applicable laws and regulations and UAS operators’ own privacy and security policies through appropriate internal processes.

V. BEST PRACTICES FOR NEWSGATHERERS AND NEWS REPORTING ORGANIZATIONS

Newsgathering and news reporting are strongly protected by United States law, including the First Amendment to the Constitution. The public relies on an independent press to gather and report the news and ensure an informed public.

For this reason, these Best Practices do not apply to newsgatherers and news reporting organizations. Newsgatherers and news reporting organizations may use UAS in the same manner as any other comparable technology to capture, store, retain and use data or images in public spaces. Newsgatherers and news reporting organizations should operate under the ethics rules and standards of their organization, and according to existing federal and state laws.

APPENDIX

Guidelines for Neighborly Drone Use

Drones are useful. New, fairly cheap drones are easy to use. But just because they are cheap and simple to fly doesn’t mean the pictures and video they take can’t harm other people. The FAA and partner organizations have put safety guidance online at http://knowbeforeyoufly.org. But even safe flight might not respect other people’s privacy. These are voluntary guidelines. No one is forcing you to obey them. Privacy is hard to define, but it is important. There is a balance between your rights as a drone user and other people’s rights to privacy. That balance isn’t easy to find. You should follow the detailed “UAS Privacy Best Practices”, on which these guidelines are based, especially if you fly drones often, or use them commercially. The overarching principle should be peaceful issue resolution.

If you can, tell other people you’ll be taking pictures or video of them before you do.

If you think someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy, don’t violate that privacy by taking pictures, video, or otherwise gathering sensitive data, unless you’ve got a very good reason.

Don’t fly over other people’s private property without permission if you can easily avoid doing so.

Don’t gather personal data for no reason, and don’t keep it for longer than you think you have to.

If you keep sensitive data about other people, secure it against loss or theft.

If someone asks you to delete personal data about him or her that you’ve gathered, do so, unless you’ve got a good reason not to.

If anyone raises privacy, security, or safety concerns with you, try and listen to what they have to say, as long as they’re polite and reasonable about it.

Don’t harass people with your drone.

Footnotes

1 The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has convened a series of multi-stakeholder efforts as a way to increase privacy protections based upon the Administration’s framework for consumer information privacy. On February 15, 2015, President Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum instructing NTIA to convene such a process to develop and communicate best practices for privacy, accountability, and transparency issues regarding commercial and private UAS use in the National Airspace System. These Voluntary Best Practices are the result of that multi-stakeholder engagement process.

2 What qualifies as a practicable and reasonable effort to provide prior notice will depend on operators’ circumstances and the context of the UAS operation. For example, delivery UAS operators may provide customers with an estimated time of delivery. Real estate professionals using UAS may provide a home seller (and possibly immediate neighbors) with prior notice of the estimated date of UAS photography of the property. Hobbyist UAS operators may not need to notify nearby individuals of UAS flight in the vicinity.

3 These Best Practices recognize that UAS operators may not be able to predict all future uses of data. Accordingly, these Best Practices do not intend to discourage unplanned or innovative data uses that may result in desirable economic or societal benefits.

4 If it is not practicable to provide an exact retention period, because, for example, the retention period depends on legal hold requirements or evolving business operations, the UAS operator may explain that to data subjects when disclosing its retention policies.

5 This may be as simple as talking to an individual who approaches the UAS operator with a concern.

6 As with the privacy policy referenced in § IV.1(b), UAS operators may modify a broader existing security policy to incorporate data collected via UAS. A security policy should include, at minimum, such basic steps as keeping software up to date and downloading security patches for known vulnerabilities.