ATA Comments on Proposed FAA UAS Rules

/

 

AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY ALLIANCE

COMMENTS ON PROPOSED FAA UAS RULES

Re: Docket No. FAA-2015-0150;

Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, 80 Fed. Reg. 9544

(Feb. 23, 2015) 

The Agricultural Technology Alliance (ATA) is pleased to offer comments to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on its major proposed rule entitled “Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems” (80 Fed. Reg. 9544). This proposed rule was released by the FAA on February 23, 2015. The purpose of the proposed rule is to provide for the safe and effective integration of small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), commonly known as “drones” or “Unmanned Aerial Vehicles” (UAVs), into the National Airspace System (NAS). ATA strongly supports the FAA’s efforts to establish a regulatory framework for commercial UAS operations, and firmly believes that UAS can be used in a way that will benefit American farmers while protecting public safety.

The ATA is a coalition of associations and corporations in the farming and agriculture field. ATA has great interest in this proposed UAS rule since there are numerous innovative uses for UAS in the agriculture sector. UAS can help America’s farmers increase yields, lower costs and improve stewardship of natural resources. This will ultimately allow America’s farmers and ranchers to keep costs low for American consumers and help meet an ever-growing demand for food as the global population increases.

When equipped with the proper cameras and sensors, UAS can gather data that is critical for efficient agricultural production. Multispectral cameras can capture raw photographs, infrared images, and Normalized Difference Vegetative Index (NVDI) images that can provide useful data for and insights into precision agriculture systems. UAS data can be used to detect biotic and abiotic stress such as drought, monitor irrigation, determine fertilizer needs, spray for pests and disease, and predict crop yields. UAS technology can allow for greater effectiveness for crop damage assessment and insurance, and for effectively monitoring livestock use.

Researchers all over the country are regularly coming up with innovative ways to utilize UAS in agriculture. For example, we are finding that UAS might be able to detect microbes in the atmosphere that lead to plant disease—potentially creating an early warning system for epidemics. UAS might also be used to map nitrogen deficiency in soil. Such breakthroughs occur nearly every day, and the rule proposed here must be crafted with sufficient flexibility to allow for the efficient utilization of these breakthrough technologies as they emerge.

Of course, farmers already use satellite imagery and/or aerial monitoring by manned aircraft. Manned aircraft and satellite imagery are too expensive, however, for most farming operations to access frequently during a growing season. In contrast, the marginal cost for an additional UAS survey is relatively low. UAS data can also be vastly more precise, providing greater value to field data users in real time. Satellite imagery yields data specific to 1×1 meter blocks, while UAS can deliver data specific to a matter of millimeters. For instance, some vineyards employ UAS to monitor grape health on a vine-by-vine basis, thereby determining which grapes are ripening sooner than expected. In addition, UAS technology has been proven to detect citrus disease much earlier and more precisely than any other readily available technology.

It is becoming clearer every day that UAS technology can add substantial value to a precision agriculture program. This proposed rule is therefore critically important to the farming community and the ATA.

The proposed rule represents a good faith effort by the FAA to safely integrate UAS into the national airspace, allowing for its many economic benefits to accrue to industries like agriculture. ATA appreciates the manner in which the FAA has tried to balance the various issues at stake and come to a responsible conclusion. We feel, however, that the one-size-fits-all rule proposed here—which does not vary by proposed use—might not be the most effective way to regulate UAS use throughout the country.

In particular, ATA’s position is that this proposed rule, though well-intentioned and generally reasonable, does not consider the unique characteristics of farmers and other agricultural concerns’ UAS operations. Two characteristics distinguish agricultural UAS operations which should greatly mitigate the FAA’s justified safety concerns.

  1. The overwhelming majority of agricultural UAS operations will take place in rural areas, far away from airports or major population centers.
  2. In almost every circumstance, agricultural UAS operations will take place over land owned by the operator. Sometimes, public or private roads bisect the property being surveyed, but these roads are likely to be very lightly travelled.

ATA urges the FAA to consider a tiered regulatory framework for UAS use, whereby different rules would be applied based on population density. For example, UAS use could be regulated based on distance from a major or regional airport. What’s more, the FAA could waive certain

requirements if farmers equip their UAS with certain readily available technologies for risk mitigation (such as geo-fencing and similar technologies).

Let’s look at one general example that would represent a commonplace use of UAS for farming:

A farmer operates UAS to survey crops at low altitudes (below the 500’ height restriction) and below the 100 mile per hour speed restriction in order to make decisions about the most efficient use of water and pesticides, if necessary. The farm is located hundreds of miles from the nearest airport. The UAS is equipped with geo-mapping technology. In this circumstance, there is no need for a stringent visual line-of-sight (VLOS) requirement for that UAS. VLOS requirements should be relaxed for UAS operating in sparsely-populated rural areas, and should be further relaxed (or even eliminated altogether) for UAS equipped with certified automated technologies for risk mitigation.

ATA’s overriding recommendation, therefore, is for the FAA to propose a tiered schedule of rules that take into account populations density and technology utilization. Regarding the specifics of the proposed rules, ATA offers the following observations and comments:

Line-of-Sight Requirements

In the proposed rule, the FAA recognizes that UAS-associated technologies are rapidly evolving and could develop to alleviate safety concerns. ATA agrees with this statement and would add that there are already automated technologies for UAS that could reduce the need for strict line-of-sight requirements.

ATA strongly believes that the final rule should relax operating restrictions on UAS equipped with technologies for risk mitigation. In addition, we urge the FAA to consider the unique characteristics of precision agriculture, namely that it occurs in rural communities typically not close to commercial airports and covering broad swaths of private lands.

These characteristics justify a line-of-sight requirement for agricultural operations that would allow UAS operators to fly without continuous line-of-sight as long as they are flying with a first-person view device or geo-mapping technology above contiguous private land over which they possess legal jurisdiction or control. Further, incidental over flight by a UAS of a road or highway should be allowed if the road or highway bisects otherwise contiguous private land.

Micro UAS Rules

In the proposed rule, the FAA announced it is considering a micro UAS classification (Micro UAS). We wish to voice our support for the FAA to promulgate a Micro UAS rule similar to Transport Canada’s Micro UAS rule (AC 600-004). The FAA’s Micro UAS rule, like the FAA’s blanket COA for Section 333 operators, should provide a blanket exemption to fly below 400 feet and certain distances away from airports. In addition, flying directly over persons not involved in flight operations, such as farmhands, should be permitted.

A Micro UAS rule would relieve the FAA’s administrative burden without compromising safety. If the FAA issued a blanket Micro UAS exemption, it could better focus its efforts on higher risk operations. Micro UAS also provide a high degree of safety to persons on the ground because they are lightweight and composed of frangible materials—which cause Micro UAS to easily break or distort upon impact.

We also urge the FAA to consider a Micro UAS rule that permits autonomous flight operations and first-person view devices. Autonomous flight operations, without continuous line-of-sight, can be safely conducted provided that the Micro UAS is operated outside of controlled airspace, and further provided that either (a) the operator flies with a first-person view device or geo-mapping technology over contiguous private land or (b) someone other than the operator uses a first-person view device while flying over contiguous private land. By enabling an operator or another person to have an “onboard” pilot’s perspective of the airspace, these devices could enhance operators’ ability to decisively see and avoid other aircraft or objects.

We would like further clarity on the registration requirements for Micro UAS. We suggest exempting Micro UAS from the FAA’s registration requirement. Aircraft registry is not required under the FAA’s current Model Aircraft Operating Standards (AC 91-57) or Transport Canada’s Micro UAS rule (AC 600-004).

Operator Certification

We appreciate that the FAA did not require a formal pilot’s license for UAS operators. Such a strict requirement would have made UAS use unaffordable and impractical for many small family farms. In requiring a UAS operator to have an airman’s certificate with a UAS rating and not a formal pilot’s license, the FAA implicitly recognizes the fundamental difference between operating UAS and piloting manned aircraft.

The ATA suggests that the operation of a UAS is similar in many respects to the operation of farming equipment, and we would point out that age restrictions for the operation of such equipment are governed by state child labor laws. For age eligibility, we urge that the FAA treat UAS operators in the same manner as operators of farming equipment—allowing state child labor laws to predominate.