An analysis of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking released in August 2025 aimed at enabling enabling autonomous unmanned aerial system (UAS) operations beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) shows the proposed rule will have implications for all users of the National Airspace System “in ways large and small,” according to officials with the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA).
“EAA has extensively analyzed the rule and we will be submitting comments to the proposal on behalf of our members prior to the Oct. 6 deadline,” officials said in a report on the EAA website. “This is a complex proposal that will have implications for users of the National Airspace System in ways large and small, and it is imperative that the community understands what these implications are and are not.”
In a summary of the nearly 700-page proposed rule, “Normalizing Unmanned Aircraft Systems Beyond Visual Line of Sight Operations,” EAA officials paid particular attention to areas of concern to general aviation pilots.
Part 108
The rulebook will gain two new parts: 14 CFR 108 and 146. The certification and operations of BVLOS unmanned aircraft would be handled by Part 108, while Part 146 would deal with the data infrastructure required by these operations.
The NPRM does not change Part 107, the existing rules for flying small drones within visual line of sight and frequently used by camera operators and other users of UAS within a localized area.
Like Part 107, Part 108 would generally be limited to 400 feet AGL.
The FAA is proposing requirements that all UAS operators obtain either an operating permit or an operating certificate to conduct operations under Part 108.
All UAS used in BVLOS operations must meet ASTM standards (currently in development), a concept similar to the design and production of light-sport aircraft. These requirements are far more stringent than the current Part 107 rules and will be met only with considerable investment on the part of the operator, the EAA analysis notes.
The FAA is proposing a new traffic deconfliction concept for all Part 108 operations, known as Unmanned Aircraft System Traffic Management (UTM).
UTM is a third-party management system, defined in the new Part 146, which allows drones to “see” other drones in the National Airspace System.
“It is similar to what is already used by air traffic controllers for manned aircraft deconfliction, but it has no current compatibility with ATC technology,” the EAA analysis states. “While effective at maintaining separation between two unmanned aircraft, UTM is strictly a drone-to-drone service. Drones will not be transmitting ADS-B data under this proposal.”
Changes to Part 91 Right-Of-Way Rules
Of critical importance to general aviation pilots, the NPRM proposes changes to 14 CFR 91.113 right of way rules, giving the right of way to UAS conducting operations under Part 108 unless a manned aircraft is equipped with either rule-compliant ADS-B or a proposed portable beacon.
Drones must also avoid airports, heliports, and seaplane bases, and must have secondary avoidance systems (“detect and avoid” or DAA) when operating in Class B and C airspace.
“In all other airspace within the Part 108 operating regime of 400 feet AGL and below, a drone would have the right of way over manned aircraft not broadcasting a signal,” the analysis finds.
“EAA has scrutinized this part of the proposal in particular detail,” officials said. “We are concerned for the safety of many operators, particularly ultralights, seaplanes, helicopters, balloons, operations away from airports, and others. We note that there is little consideration of ultralights in the rule, which is problematic as they are legally defined as vehicles and under current rules have the obligation to avoid all aircraft, including UAS.”
Also introduced was a framework for a low-cost position reporting (or “electronic conspicuity”) system not yet manufactured or sold, raising questions about the viability of this critical system, EAA officials said.
“EAA is pushing for any such system to be portable, with minimal power requirements, and completely anonymous,” officials added.
“Finally, we have significant issues with the practical day-to-day application of Right of Way rules with manned aircraft obligated to avoid a drone unless equipped,” they continued. “A balloon, for example, may well be incapable of avoiding a drone even with plenty of warning.”
See-and-avoid has always been a mutual obligation, regardless of who has the Right of Way, the analysis noted.
“We believe that UAS should similarly ‘see-and-avoid,’ utilizing DAA in all airspace,” EAA officials said.
Cost of Equipage
In the absence of detect and avoid by all UAS, and likely even with this technology, equipage with ADS-B or the proposed electronic conspicuity system will be a safety imperative for many low-altitude operators, EAA officials said.
“Expecting the general aviation community to shoulder the financial burden of equipage is essentially asking the community to partially underwrite the cost of integrating commercially-lucrative BVLOS operations into the airspace or risk life and limb as an unequipped operator. This is unacceptable,” EAA officials noted.
What is an Airport?
Part 108 operators must avoid aircraft “departing from or arriving at an airport or heliport.” The definition of an “airport” per 14 CFR 1.1 is quite broad, and would include private airstrips and possibly even backcountry landing areas, EAA officials said.
“EAA is seeking an easy pathway for private airport operators or sponsors to make their locations known to drone operators, even if uncharted,” the analysis continues.
A similar issue applies to seaplane operators. Part 108 would prohibit drone activity near “seaplane bases,” but seaplanes often venture far from designated bases.
“The safety of seaplanes, balloons, helicopters, agricultural aircraft, and ultralights will need to be considered more carefully in any rule arising from this proposal,” officials said.
The Good with the Bad
BVLOS integration is coming in one form or another and soon, EAA officials said, noting “the economic benefits are simply too great for policymakers to ignore.”
“While we have trepidations concerning aspects of the proposal, there are some important considerations given for the GA community in the NPRM,” officials said.
“There is no segregation of the airspace — no areas where drones are allowed and other operators are not. This has long been a policy goal of EAA and was by no means a guarantee,” they noted.
This issue also renewed interest in “portable ADS-B,” which appears in this proposal as “electronic conspicuity.”
“While we remain deeply concerned about the Part 91 right-of-way rule changes in this NPRM as written, we have long heard from operators who wish to report their position to other pilots and cannot, as not every aircraft or ultralight vehicle can easily be equipped with traditional ADS-B systems,” EAA officials said. “This NPRM, combined with other efforts EAA is undertaking with industry partners could finally bring portable (anonymous) position reporting to the GA world.”
“Finally, more investment in aviation can benefit the entire GA economy,” the analysis concludes. “There are certainly competing interests in UAS integration and we need to address critical safety challenges as the effort continues, but the investment and innovation coming out of the UAS world are investments in aviation as a whole. EAA and other GA groups do not seek to derail UAS integration, only to ensure that it happens with the highest regard for the safety and lives of those sharing the airspace with drones.”
Comments are the proposal will be accepted through Oct. 6, 2025, at Regulations.gov.
For more information: EAA.org
The first time a drone hits an aircraft, and heaven forbid anyone is injured or killed, the lawsuits will ensue.
I’m curious if the drones are required to have ADSB out in addition to the drone to drone system which is separate from ADSB.
Those of us who fly outside of class B and C airspace and away from cities apparently are on our own.
Apparently, the UAV developers and operators have more political pull, (read money) than the G.A. operators. As if the crop duster pilot didn’t have enough on his plate watching out for tree, power lines, fence post, stand pipes, etc.
Looks like FAA rule makers can be bought as easily as a politician.
It’s the world upside down.
BVLOS UAS should give way to airplanes, sea or land, balloons and gliders and not the other way around. As said by others, even in a small airplane, it is practically impossible to spot an UAS. And UASs are much more maneuvrable than much faster airplanes. For me, this richt of way for UAS is the wrong way to go.
While I have enjoyed a lifetime of enthusiasm for science and technology, perhaps I am old fashioned in thinking that humans in aircraft should always have priority over machines without humans aboard. Autonomous or remotely piloted machine should not be permitted in any airspace unless they have – and pay for – the technology proven to keep them clear of human carrying operations.
Every state Game and Fish agency, as well as the Fish and Wildlife Service and some National Parks, frequently operate aircraft at very low levels for wildlife management purposes. Pilots and observers’ attention is focused on the ground. Search and Rescue operations are also low-level, ground focused flights. Right of way to an unmanned, almost undetectable, drone below 400 feet would put all of these nearly daily flights in jeopardy.
ROW over glider being towed? Or gliders on returning to airfield!
If the Feds do this, I surmise they will, I hope they require/ add coatings that resemble disco ball mirrors for daylight ops, and with lots of flashing lights like a Times Square Christmas tree for nighttime. Then maybe pilots can spot and avoid them, same as birds.
Not sure this idea of drones pretty much everywhere under 400 feet was thought out very well.
On a similar topic, it is time for ALL aircraft to have ADS-B out.
Even the tethered balloons along the border (Tethered Aerostat Radar System (TARS) have ADS-B out.
This just flies in the face of the most basic priniples of “right-of-way. It shouldn’t have gotten past the first step. Drones are among the most agile craft in the air, they belong at the very end of the chain.
Secondly, in reality, those in control of drones do not have “skin in the game” and do not have the full force of their senses guiding decisions. These controllers are by nature more willing to push the risk envelope.
Going through with this rule is extremely likely to be a BAD EXPERIMENT.
This really sucks. What does SPA (Seaplane Pilots Association) have to say? How can you give something the right of way if you can’t see it? Right of way normally is granted to the less maneuverable craft. If “they” are going to create these drones with infinite technology, they should be able to See and Avoid other aircraft.
We should quickly submit applications for airport approval for all Walmart, Amazon, Post Offices, UPS, and FedEx locations. If we get them approved or in process as “airports”, they can’t fly their drones profitably. Why wait for the proposal when we can be proactive and inundate the FAA with requests?
FAA may decide to go to 250′ instead of 400′. Surely, that would make it better?
On another note, time to start modifying aircraft for collisions. I wonder what a Cirrus would look like with a cow catcher on it?
Maybe start an association that supports a new experimental category of “ramming home builts” or a new Hollywood hit series, “Air Battle Bots”
There certainly will be a market for “Air Defense” mechanisms like anti-avoidance lasers to take out drones in conflict scenarios.
And the BIG takeaway is that Humans are no longer important; a mechanical apparatus that can be replaced is more important than a human life!
LET THAT SINK IN!
As an aside, but not totally unrelated, I haven’t flown full scale aircraft in quite a while, but my aviation roots are firmly there. Currently, I fly UAS/Drones out of our club’s field, a FAA Recognized Identification Area (FRIA). The surrounding and overlying airspace is uncontrolled (G airspace). I don’t see where FRIAs are identified on the VFR sectionals. How are full scale aircraft suppose to give ROW to the UAS/Drones if they pilots don’t know where to begin looking? UAS/Drones are difficult to see under the best of conditions. I think that the FAA has some more work to do on this. The “Big Sky, Little Airplane” philosophy has proven itself faulty for decades.
I do a lot of low-level (well below 500 feet AGL) oblique landscape aerial photography over sparsely populated areas maintaining a horizontal separation of at least 500 feet from any person, vehicle, vessel, or structure (14 CFR § 91.119(c). That’s the principal reason I own and fly an airplane which is equipped with ADS-B In and Out. Nevertheless, I have concerns about this proposed rule. Will the UAS see and avoid me based on ADS-B or artificial sight? Many UAS are very small and difficult for a pilot to see. Are we gradually surrendering surface through 400 feet AGL airspace to UAS?
How can you avoid what cannot be seen? Most UAS are very small, and most smaller airplanes and ultralights are not equipped with ADS-B equipment, so how are these aircraft and vehicles intended to avoid UAS that often cannot be seen or detected?
FAA is apparently unaware that seaplanes are not confined to seaplane bases. So a small, maneuverable unmanned craft has ROW over a float-equipped Otter or a Caravan on short final over water. What could go wrong?
As a glider pilot that often flies low and lands away from airports, I’m advocating for a portable ADSB system that could be used in gliders, balloons, ultralights, & UAS. Something small, less powerful, and affordable that transmits lat/long/alt/description. The technology is already here, receivers are very affordable, and this is already used in much of the GA fleet.
This is stupid.
You can’t even see these things.
How the hell are you supposed to avoid something that you can’t even see?
Who is the idiot that suggested this?