Federal Aviation Administration publicizes its coverage for the sort certification of sure unmanned plane techniques as a particular class of plane. – Drones Information
In 2012, Congress passed the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act (Pub. L. 112-95). Section 332 of Public Law 112-95 (codified at 49 U.S.C. 44802) directed the FAA to develop a comprehensive plan to safely accelerate the integration of unmanned aerial vehicle systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System (NAS). As part of this plan, the FAA issued the final regulation on the operation and certification of small unmanned aircraft systems (81 FR 42064, June 28, 2016), which added 14 CFR Part 107 to the provisions of the FAA in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR).
Part 107 contains rules for the operation of small UASthat do not require an FAA Certificate of Airworthiness. According to Part 107, operations may not take place on people. At night, usually over 400 feet above the ground or out of sight, without the FAA waiving it. UAS weighing 55 pounds or more and small UAS operated outside of the restrictions set out in Part 107 may be required to obtain an Airworthiness Certificate, Waiver, or Exemption.
The FAA sets airworthiness criteria and issues model certificates to ensure the safe operation of aircraft in accordance with 49 U. S.C. 44701 (a) and 44704. Section 44704 requires the Administrator to determine that an aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or device is properly designed, manufactured, functioning properly, and meets the requirements and minimum standards prescribed in Section 44701 (a) before proceeding a type certificate for it.
14 CFR Part 21 contains the FAA procedural requirements for airworthiness and type certification. When the FAA announced Part 21 as part of its recoding to combine and streamline civil aviation regulations, it originally asked applicants for a model certificate showing that the product complies with existing airworthiness standards (29 FR 14562, October 24, 1964). Existing airworthiness standards for airplanes and other products that have been issued as a separate part of the FAA regulations are: normal category airplanes under 14 CFR Part 23, transport category airplanes under 14 CFR Part 25, rotary wing aircraft under 14 CFR Part 27, Transport category rotary wing aircraft under 14 CFR Part 29, manned free balloons under 14 CFR Part 31, aircraft engines under 14 CFR Part 33 and propellers under 14 CFR Part 35.
The FAA then amended Part 21 to add procedural requirements for issuing model certificates for particular classes of aircraft (52 FR 8040, March 13, 1987). In the last rule (amendment 21-60), the FAA stated that the special class category should include in part those aircraft that would qualify for a standard certificate of airworthiness, but for which, due to their uniqueness, there are no certification standards, novel or unusual design features. The FAA also noted that the “decision to certify an aircraft either in or below the special class aircraft category. . . The FAR depends entirely on the unique, novel, and / or unusual design features of the aircraft. “(52 FR 8041).
In particular, in the final rule (Amendment 21-60) § 21.17 (b) has been changed to include the certification procedure for special aircraft classes. For special aircraft classes for which no airworthiness standards have been issued, the airworthiness requirements are those parts of the existing standards that are contained in parts 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33 and 35, as determined by the FAA. Suitable for the aircraft and on a specific design applicable, or airworthiness criteria that the FAA may consider to be an equivalent level of safety for these parts.
An “unmanned aircraft” is an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention inside or on the aircraft. See 49 U.S.C. 44801 (11); 14 CFR 1.1. Unmanned aircraft include all classes of aircraft, rotary wing aircraft, and powered aircraft. Many UAS elements, while essential for safe operation, are part of the UAS system, but are not permanent features of the unmanned aerial vehicle. For example, instead of a traditional undercarriage with wheels and brakes, many UAS have a start and recovery system. In addition, the fact that the pilot is not in the aircraft allows for unique configurations and applications of airframes, engines, fuels and materials that can result in different flight characteristics than conventional aircraft. These UAS specific traits are the very unique, novel, and / or unusual traits for which the particular class category was developed.
A notice of guidelines and a request for comments on the type certification of certain UAS has been published in the EU Federal Register on February 3, 2020 (85 FR 5905). The public comment period for the announcement ended on March 4, 2020. The announcement proposed that some UAS without occupants on board can be type-certified as a special class of aircraft in accordance with Section 21.17 (b). The announcement also suggested that the FAA may continue to issue sample certificates for aircraft and rotary wing aircraft in accordance with Section 21.17 (a).
Discussion of the comments
The FAA received 66 comments. The majority of the commentators were individual UAS operators. Remaining commentators included UAS manufacturers, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma (CNO), the People’s Republic of China (PRC), and organizations such as the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), and Airlines for America ( A4A), the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), the Commercial Drone Alliance (CDA), the National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA), SAE International (SAE) and the Small UAV Coalition. The following summarizes the comments received and the FAA’s response.
AIA, AOPA, A4A, Amazon Prime Air, the Choctaw Nation, the Commercial Drone Alliance, SAE and twelve other commentators spoke out in favor of politics.
A. Certification process
An anonymous commenter asked the FAA to publish a schedule for the certification process. FAA Order 8110.4C, type certification dated March 28, 2007, contains procedures and guidelines for the type certification of products. This order describes the responsibilities of the FAA and the applicant in creating a project plan. The certification schedule for each project will vary significantly depending on the project details, scope, and complexity. Because of these many variables, the FAA cannot publish a UAS type certification schedule that would be generally applicable.
One individual asked the FAA to put in place a less restrictive process for UAS type certification for first responders and emergency management operators for government agencies and subdivisions. The commentator suggested that the type certification process was laborious and unjustified, as the main task of the emergency services was public safety. Certain FAA civil certification and safety oversight regulations do not apply to public aircraft. Aircraft that do not qualify for public aircraft status are civil aircraft. UAS operated by government agencies, law enforcement agencies, and state public safety agencies may be classified as public aircraft for the purposes of US 49 law. 40102 (a) (41) and 40125. This guideline for the type certification of certain UAS only applies to civil aircraft.
Aero Systems West asked the FAA to provide an expedited process for small UAS with parachute safety systems installed. The commenter stated that controlling the rate of descent is the most important contributor to reducing the likelihood of human injury during a UAS aircraft accident. The FAA does not believe any other process is appropriate for designs that include a parachute system. While a parachute recovery system can mitigate some risks to a UAS, in itself it is unlikely to fully mitigate all potential risks, so an expedited type certification process would be appropriate.
Another asked how the public could provide meaningful comments on the specific airworthiness criteria for each applicant when the FAA normally withholds the applicant’s proprietary operational and design data. As part of the certification process as a special aircraft class, the FAA publishes a public statement on the airworthiness criteria specified for each applicant. The commenter is right that the FAA cannot disclose proprietary or confidential design information of manufacturers in these communications, as such disclosure is prohibited by the Trade Secrets Act, 18 USA. 1905 (1979). Instead, the FAA will provide a general description of the product similar to what is stated on the Type Certificate Datasheet (TCDS). This is the same process the FAA has followed for the certification of specialty aircraft such as sailplanes, airships, and very light aircraft.
The CNO and CDA requested the FAA to clarify the implications of this policy on other rules. This request was specifically related to a statement in the proposed policy that the policy would only apply to the procedures for type certification of UAS and was not intended to establish or influence other FAA rules (operation, pilot certification or maintenance) related to UAS. These commentators agreed that a model certificate will not give a UAS operator authority to operate, but stated that the FAA should clarify that the operating restrictions in the TCDS concern issues such as operations, pilot certification, or maintenance, and therefore have implications. The FAA agrees that type certification of individual UAS may include operational restrictions that affect operation, pilot certification, or maintenance. The purpose of the statement in the proposal was to inform the public that the FAA does not intend to use this policy to override FAA regulations relating to UAS, specifically other FAA regulations outside of Part 21.
B. Applicability of this Policy
One individual and the AOPA asked the FAA to exempt model airplanes from this policy, and fifteen individual commentators opposed the policy, claiming it would adversely affect hobbyists. The CNO and CDA stated that the policy should apply to all UAS regardless of weight. Several commentators urged the FAA to clarify, in addition to package delivery, what types of advanced operations are affected by the policy and which UAS may require type certification.
This guideline addresses the process the FAA uses to set airworthiness standards for type certification of some UAS with no occupants on board when a UAS manufacturer requests type certification. Whether a UAS requires a sample certificate depends on the weight of the UAS, the purpose of the operations, and the particular operating rules that the UAS is expected to operate under. This policy does not apply to UAS operated other than exceptional recreational activities as they do not meet airworthiness requirements or do not need to apply for type certification. A sample certificate is not required for small UAS operated under Part 107. UAS weighing 55 pounds or more and small UAS operating in accordance with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 91 or 135 will require either a sample certificate, waiver, exemption, or special certificate of airworthiness as appropriate. Parcel delivery and other complex operations such as farming, inspection, surveillance, infrastructure monitoring, pseudosatellites or the carriage of other goods for compensation or rental may be affected by this policy.
One commentator said that the policy does not apply to UAS carrying occupants as UAS carrying occupants should be certified using the same procedure as manned aircraft. The FAA agrees. This guideline deals with the type certification of some UAS without occupants on board.
AIA demanded that the scope of the directive also include optionally piloted aircraft. The commentator stated that as technology advances, optional piloted aircraft are becoming increasingly possible. The FAA disagrees. An Optional Piloted Airplane (OPA) is a manned aircraft that can be flown or controlled by the in-command pilot or someone else from a location that is not on board the aircraft. Although the method of controlling the aircraft is optional, the pilot-in-command always remains on board the aircraft in any event. OPAs are therefore not the subject of this guideline, as they are not unmanned aircraft in the sense of 49 USA. 44801 (11) and 14 CFR 1.1.
D. Requests to amend the policy
The CNO and the CDA called for streamlining, flexibility and consideration of changing technologies. The commentators indicated that the type certification process should take months instead of years and take innovation into account. The FAA replies that this policy provides a flexible type certification process that allows certain airworthiness criteria for each product design. Under this policy, airworthiness criteria may change as technologies change and applicants suggest innovative and unique font designs. The FAA also notes that the pace of a certification program depends on many factors, including the complexity of the project and the applicant’s development and testing schedules.
Joby Aviation requested the FAA to prioritize the use of existing airworthiness standards in accordance with the procedure in Section 21.17 (a) when a product exactly matches the characteristics of the aircraft or rotorcraft class and when special conditions (as per Section 21.16) can be appropriately used to Eliminate differences. The commentator explained that the approach of using the flexibility of the special class procedure in Section 21.17 (b) makes sense for certain UAS or products for which it does not make sense to apply existing airworthiness standards. The purpose of this policy is to use the flexibility provided in the certification process under Section 21.17 (b) to accommodate the unique configurations and innovative uses of airframes, engines, fuels and materials found in most UAS designs. For unmanned aircraft and unmanned rotorcraft designs for which the airworthiness standards in Part 23 and 27 are appropriate for the basis of certification, the FAA can continue to issue sample certificates in accordance with the procedures in §§ 21.16 and 21.17 (a). The certification path for each individual UAS project is based on applicability, relevance, appropriateness and suitability.
Joby Aviation also requested the FAA certificate for the carriage of passenger UAS according to the existing, proven standards in Part 23 or Part 27 according to the individual aircraft design according to the procedure in § 21.17 (a). Kilroy Aviation proposed a tiered certification approach to UAS, with one tier for UAS carrying passengers. These comments are beyond the scope of this policy, which does not apply to UAS carrying inmates.
Another commentator urged the FAA to further define the certification types, methodologies, and schedule before issuing this guideline. This commentator indicated that the vastly different types and uses of UAS render a blanket type of certification ineffective or even meaningless. The FAA notes that this guideline is only a procedural guideline for setting the airworthiness standards for the type certification of some UAS. The notice of the proposed directive with a request for comments on the type certification of unmanned aircraft systems included in the Federal Register explained on February 3, 2020 (85 FR 5905) the legislative and regulatory history, the background and the reasons of the FAA for the type certification of certain UAS as special aircraft class according to § 21.17 (b). The purpose of this policy is to provide a flexible process until broadly applicable UAS airworthiness standards are identified and established. As part of the certification process as a special aircraft class, the FAA publishes a notice for each applicant in which a public statement on the special airworthiness criteria is obtained. The established airworthiness criteria will not become final until the FAA considers public comments and publishes the airworthiness criteria as the basis for certification of the applicant’s design.
The PRC asked the FAA to use the three UAS categories (open, specific and certified) proposed by the Joint Authorities for Establishing Rules for Unmanned Systems (JARUS) and issued by the European Union. This commentator also urged the FAA to inform the international aviation partners in good time about their UAS type certification standards. The FAA notes that this policy is only a procedural guideline for setting airworthiness standards for type certification of certain UAS. If the FAA deems it appropriate as UAS technology evolves and common standards are identified, the FAA may regulate standards. During these activities, the FAA would further evaluate the UAS categories established by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the variety of UAS drafts to inform future actions of the agency. The FAA will continue to work with international government and industry partners on UAS certification requirements.
Kilroy Aviation, the CNO, and the CDA commented on FAA resources for UAS certification projects. The CNO and CDA urged the FAA to allocate enough staff to support the exponential increase in UAS certification projects. Kilroy Aviation requested the FAA delegate to delegate the results of UAS compliance to the designated persons. The FAA is committed to the safe and efficient integration of UAS into NAS, and type certification of UAS is an important step in that process. The FAA will continue to evaluate its resources and make any adjustments necessary to handle certification projects from UAS and other aircraft. However, comments on the delegation of UAS certification results to agents are beyond the scope of this policy.
One commentator called on the directive to prohibit UAS manufacturers from self-certifying their designs. This comment is beyond the scope of this guideline. This policy only describes the process by which the FAA will establish airworthiness standards for type certification of certain UAS. FAA Regulation 8110.4C provides procedures and guidelines for type certification of products, including how an applicant for type certification demonstrates compliance.
The CNO and CDA urged the FAA to ensure early and frequent coordination between FAA offices. These commentators indicated that coordination between those responsible for issuing the model certificate and those responsible for issuing the operating license was essential in order for applicants to have the authority to operate the UAS when their model certificate was issued. The FAA agrees. A model certificate is a design approval and just one of several requirements (airworthiness, pilot certification, registration, air traffic control permit, carrier certification, etc.) that must be met for an aircraft to operate in the NAS. The FAA established the UAS Integration Office to facilitate coordination between FAA offices in UAS activities.
ALPA urged the FAA to limit the duration of the policy to no more than two years as the process should only be temporary until the FAA develops certification provisions specifically designed for UAS. The FAA disagrees. It is currently not foreseeable when generally applicable airworthiness standards for UAS will be established or in what form these might be available. The FAA can replace this guideline at any time by issuing generally applicable standards through regulation.
One person requested the policy to define unmanned aircraft using a uniform taxonomy. This commentator noted that many common UAS designs are not easily classified as aircraft, rotary wing aircraft, or hybrid lifts. This commentator also requested that the directive define the term “unmanned aircraft system” as this term is not defined in 14 CFR 1.1. The FAA agrees that the UAS designs are different. However, this guideline only addresses the process of how the FAA sets airworthiness standards for type certification of certain UAS as a special class. Although there is no equivalent definition in 14 CFR Part 1, the term “unmanned aircraft system” is legally defined in 49 USC. 44801 (12) as an unmanned aircraft and the associated elements (including communications links and the components that control the unmanned aircraft) that the operator needs to operate safely and efficiently in the NAS.
E. Airworthiness Criteria for UAS
ALPA, CNO, CDA, NAAA, Wing Aviation LLC (Wing Aviation), Kilroy Aviation, Valqari LLC and six individual commentators urged the FAA to set specific airworthiness criteria for UAS. These criteria included topics such as weather, collision avoidance, marking and coloring, flash lighting, system safety ratings, payload, weight, software, propeller covers and other safety equipment, noise, batteries, public safety and control stations. Kilroy Aviation asked the FAA to consider the EASA certification criteria for “Small Category VTOL Aircraft”. Amazon Prime Air requested that while the FAA use the Section 21.17 (b) procedure for type certification, the agency also set up a working group to evaluate and create new rules for UAS airworthiness standards. These comments are beyond the scope of this policy. This policy only describes the procedures the FAA will set airworthiness standards for the type certification of certain UAS. The specific airworthiness criteria for each applicant will vary based on the need and application for the specific UAS design. The FAA will announce the airworthiness criteria for each applicant and obtain public comment. The FAA will continue to work with the public, industry, other civil aviation agencies, and standards development organizations to create and refine standards and guidelines for UAS.
Wing Aviation and other commentators demanded that the airworthiness criteria for UAS be performance based. The FAA agrees and expects to establish performance-based airworthiness criteria whenever possible based on the design of each applicant. The FAA will announce these criteria for each applicant and obtain public comment.
Kilroy Aviation, the CNO and the CDA urged the FAA to align UAS certification standards with EASA and other overseas civil aviation agencies. The FAA agrees that harmonization and coherence of UAS policies and requirements with foreign authorities is prudent. However, the implementation of this comment would go beyond the scope of this directive.
F. Operating Rules for UAS
The CNO, CDA, Valqari LLC and three individual commentators urged the FAA to establish specific criteria and rules for UAS based on operational factors. These factors included out of sight operations (BVLOS) (especially in rural areas), a designated airspace below 400 feet for agricultural drone deployment, night operations, and the location of the UAS operation. Operational considerations such as BVLOS and the identification and avoidance of requirements go beyond the scope of this guideline.
Several commentators also requested that the policy be risk-based and take into account the specific risks that each UAS is exposed to in its operating environment. The FAA agrees and plans to use a risk-based approach to UAS type certification. The FAA expects to establish performance-based airworthiness criteria for the design of each individual applicant. For example, some applicants will demonstrate compliance with the criteria through Durability and Reliability (D&R) testing at a level that is tailored to the design and based on its risk. The D&R tests would result in an acceptable number of successful flight hours representative of mission cycles to demonstrate the overall reliability of the UAS.
Several commentators urged the FAA to restrict UAS operations in residential areas and schools and to protect citizens’ right to privacy. The operational issues raised by these comments are beyond the scope of this policy, which is limited to the process of setting airworthiness standards for type certification.
The CNO, CDA and an individual asked the FAA to combine operational authority with issuing the sample certificate. These commentators suggested that as the airworthiness criteria for each type-certified UAS go through the public announcement and commentary process, any exceptions to Parts 91 and 61 (general rules of operation and flight and flight crew certification requirements) required for operation are included should . These commentators also suggested that the conditions and restrictions typically included in the granting of an exemption could then be incorporated into the TCDS as operating restrictions. This guideline describes the process by which the FAA will establish airworthiness standards for the type certification of certain UAS. The procedure for granting relief in the certification rules for emergency services and airmen is dealt with in 14 CFR Part 11.
G. Application for Generally Applicable Standards
Kilroy Aviation, the CNO, the CDA, and an individual called on the FAA to timely issue additional guidelines or rules or to recognize standards for UAS certification. The FAA is committed to developing the regulations, policies, procedures, guides, and training requirements necessary to support the safe and efficient integration of UAS with the NAS. The implementation of these activities is beyond the scope of this guideline.
H. Comments on aviators
Droneport Texas LLC requested the FAA to update the remote pilot training and learning aids requirements so pilots are aware of the differences for type-certified UAS. This commentator also urged the FAA to create specific training for maintenance staff, operators and remote pilots of the UAS-type who are certified as a specific class of aircraft. One person asked the FAA to develop different classes of UAS recreational pilots. Another person asked the FAA to produce specific aircraft type ratings for distant pilots. However, the questions raised in these comments about the training and certification of airmen are beyond the scope of this guideline, which is limited to the type certification process.
I. Requesting the FAA to withdraw the policy
An anonymous commenter disapproved of the policy, saying it would stifle innovation, limit recreation and unnecessarily compromise personal freedoms. Fifteen individual commentators disapproved of the policy on concerns that would overload hobbyists and negatively impact the model airplane community. Die FAA schließt daraus, dass diese Kommentatoren möchten, dass die FAA die Richtlinie zurückzieht. Diese Richtlinie wird eine Person, die begrenzte Freizeitaktivitäten mit einem kleinen unbemannten Flugzeug unter 49 US-Bundesstaaten durchführt, nicht belasten oder negativ beeinflussen. 44809, da für diese Vorgänge keine Typenzertifizierung erforderlich ist. Für andere UAS kann eine Typenzertifizierung erforderlich sein, abhängig vom Gewicht des UAS, dem Zweck des Betriebs und den Betriebsregeln, denen das UAS unterliegt. Diese Richtlinie bietet einen zeitnahen und flexiblen Typenzertifizierungsprozess, um sicherzustellen, dass ein UAS-Design den entsprechenden Sicherheitsstandards entspricht.
J. Anträge auf Verlängerung der Kommentierungsfrist
Zwei einzelne Kommentatoren forderten die FAA auf, die Kommentierungsfrist zu verlängern, um zusätzliche Beiträge einzuholen und zusätzliche Anforderungen zu definieren. In diesen Kommentaren wurde darauf hingewiesen, dass sich die Kommentierungsfrist für diese Bekanntmachung mit der Kommentierungsfrist für die von der FAA vorgeschlagene Regelerstellung zur Fernidentifizierung von UAS überschneidet (84 FR 72438, 31. Dezember 2019). Die FAA hat den Antrag geprüft und festgestellt, dass 30 Tage einen angemessenen Zeitpunkt für die Kommentierung der vorgeschlagenen Richtlinie darstellten, da die Öffentlichkeit während des Kommentierungszeitraums ausreichende Rückmeldungen zur Richtlinie gegeben hatte.
K. Kommentare zu anderen FAA-Regeln
Einige Kommentatoren äußerten Bedenken hinsichtlich der von der FAA vorgeschlagenen Fernidentifizierungsregel. Andere Kommentatoren sprachen sich in Teil 107 gegen die FAA-Regeln für kleine UAS aus. DJI Technology, Inc. äußerte sich zu Operationen und damit verbundenen Ausnahmeregelungen gemäß Teil 107. Da diese Kommentare FAA-Regelwerke zu anderen Themen betreffen, fallen sie nicht in den Geltungsbereich dieser Richtlinie.
L. Andere Kommentare außerhalb des Geltungsbereichs
Zwei Kommentatoren forderten die FAA-Adresse für UAS-bezogene Produkte (3D-Druckteile, Prüfstände) an. DJI Technology, Inc. forderte die FAA auf, ihre Vorschriften zu überarbeiten, damit amerikanische Unternehmen UAS in Einrichtungen außerhalb der USA herstellen können. Ein einzelner Kommentator forderte die FAA auf, 14 CFR 21.25 (a) (1) zu überarbeiten, um UAS als Spezialoperation für die Ausstellung eines Zertifikats für eingeschränkte Kategorien zuzulassen. Diese Kommentare fallen nicht in den Geltungsbereich dieser Richtlinie, in der ein Verfahren zur Festlegung von Lufttüchtigkeitsstandards für die Typenzertifizierung bestimmter UAS festgelegt ist.
Die FAA erhielt und überprüfte auch mehrere Kommentare, die sehr allgemein gehalten waren, den Standpunkt des Kommentators ohne einen spezifischen Vorschlag für die Richtlinie darlegten oder keine Anfrage stellten, auf die die FAA reagieren kann. Diese Kommentare fallen nicht in den Geltungsbereich dieser Richtlinie.
Die FAA hat festgestellt, dass einige UAS gemäß § 21.17 (b) als „Sonderklasse“ von Luftfahrzeugen typenzertifiziert sein können. Die FAA stellt gemäß § 21.17 (b) Musterzertifikate für UAS ohne Insassen an Bord aus. Die FAA kann jedoch weiterhin Musterzertifikate gemäß § 21.17 (a) für UAS-Konstruktionen von Flugzeugen und Drehflüglern ausstellen, wenn die Lufttüchtigkeitsstandards in Teil 23, 25, 27 bzw. 29 für die Zertifizierungsgrundlage geeignet sind. Diese Richtlinie gilt nur für die Verfahren zur Typenzertifizierung von UAS und soll keine Richtlinie festlegen, die sich auf andere FAA-Regeln für unbemannte Flugzeuge auswirkt, z. B. Betrieb, Pilotenzertifizierung oder Wartung.
Die FAA wird sich um eine öffentliche Stellungnahme zu den besonderen Lufttüchtigkeitskriterien für jeden Antragsteller bemühen, wenn sich die Zertifizierungsstandards für diese neue Sonderklasse weiterentwickeln. Sobald allgemein gültige Standards festgelegt sind, kann die FAA Regeln festlegen.
Die Regelerstellung der FAA in Teil 107 über kleine UAS war nur der erste Schritt im Plan der FAA, UAS in die NAS zu integrieren. Für die vollständige Integration des gegenwärtigen und zukünftigen UAS-Betriebs sind viele langfristige Aktivitäten erforderlich, einschließlich der Lieferung von Paketen und des Transports von Personen. Die von dieser Richtlinie betroffenen UAS umfassen diejenigen, die für die Paketzustellung verwendet werden. Zukünftige FAA-Aktivitäten werden sich entweder durch weitere Richtlinien oder durch die Erstellung von Regeln mit der Typenzertifizierung für UAS-befördernde Insassen befassen.
Der Inhalt dieses Dokuments hat keine Gesetzeskraft und Wirkung und soll die Öffentlichkeit in keiner Weise binden. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 11, 2020.
Manager, Small Airplane Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
1. See 14 CFR 107.3.Back to Citation
2. But see the FAA’s proposed amendment to part 107 to allow operations of small UAS over people in certain conditions (84 FR 3856, February 13, 2019).Back to Citation
3. You can find this order at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices.Back to Citation
4. 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(16).Back to Citation
5. Title 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(41) provides the definition of “public aircraft” and § 40125 provides the qualifications for public aircraft status. Additional information on public aircraft is provided in Advisory Circular (AC) 00-1.1B, Public Aircraft Operations—Manned and Unmanned. This AC is available at https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_00-1.1B.pdf.Back to Citation6. Additional information about the rules for each type of UAS user can be found at https://www.faa.gov/uas/.Back to Citation
7. See 49 U.S.C. 44809.Back to Citation
8. See 14 CFR 21.1(a).Back to Citation
9. See Appendix F of FAA Order 8130.34D, Airworthiness Certification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems and Optionally Piloted Aircraft, dated September 8, 2017. You can find this order at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices.Back to Citation
10. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/40525/delegated-act_drones.pdf.Back to Citation
11. See also 14 CFR 107.3.Back to Citation
[FR Doc. 2020-17882 Filed 9-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P