The National Academies Press

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/25607 SHARE

   
Airports and Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Volume 3: Potential

Use of UAS by Airport Operators (2020)
DETAILS
50 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

ISBN 978-0-309-49916-3 | DOI 10.17226/25607
CONTRIBUTORS
GET THIS BOOK Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc.; Airport Cooperative Research Program; Transportation
Research Board; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
FIND RELATED TITLES
SUGGESTED CITATION
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2020. Airports and

Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Volume 3: Potential Use of UAS by Airport
Operators. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/25607.

Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientific reports

– 10% off the price of print titles
– Email or social media notifications of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts

Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press.
(Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Airports and Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Volume 3: Potential Use of UAS by Airport Operators
AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 212

Airports and Unmanned
Aircraft Systems
Volume 3: Potential Use of UAS

by Airport Operators
Booz Allen Hamilton

McLean, VA
in association with
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Daytona Beach, FL
Hogan Lovells
Washington, DC
Kimley-Horn and Associates

Raleigh, NC
Novel Engineering
Melbourne, FL
Toltz, King, Duvall, Anderson, and Associates

St. Paul, MN
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.

Watertown, MA
Astrid Aviation and Aerospace

Spring Hill, FL
Subscriber Categories
Aviation • Operations and Traffic Management • Vehicles and Equipment
Research sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration
2020
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 212, VOLUME 3
Airports are vital national resources. They serve a key role in trans- Project 03-42
portation of people and goods and in regional, national, and interna- ISSN 2572-3731 (Print)
tional commerce. They are where the nation’s aviation system connects ISSN 2572-374X (Online)
with other modes of transportation and where federal responsibility for ISBN 978-0-309-48149-6
managing and regulating air traffic operations intersects with the role of Library of Congress Control Number 2020937206
state and local governments that own and operate most airports. Research
© 2020 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
is necessary to solve common operating problems, to adapt appropriate
new technologies from other industries, and to introduce innovations into
the airport industry. The Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP)
serves as one of the principal means by which the airport industry can COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
develop innovative near-term solutions to meet demands placed on it. Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining
The need for ACRP was identified in TRB Special Report 272: Airport written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously
Research Needs: Cooperative Solutions in 2003, based on a study spon- published or copyrighted material used herein.
sored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). ACRP carries out Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this
applied research on problems that are shared by airport operating agen- publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the
cies and not being adequately addressed by existing federal research understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA,
programs. ACRP is modeled after the successful National Cooperative FTA, GHSA, NHTSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice.
It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and
Highway Research Program (NCHRP) and Transit Cooperative Research not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or
Program (TCRP). ACRP undertakes research and other technical activi- reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP.
ties in various airport subject areas, including design, construction, legal,
maintenance, operations, safety, policy, planning, human resources, and
administration. ACRP provides a forum where airport operators can
cooperatively address common operational problems. NOTICE
ACRP was authorized in December 2003 as part of the Vision 100— The research report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication
Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. The primary participants in according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board
and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
the ACRP are (1) an independent governing board, the ACRP Oversight
Committee (AOC), appointed by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the
Transportation with representation from airport operating agencies, other researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation
Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the
stakeholders, and relevant industry organizations such as the Airports program sponsors.
Council International-North America (ACI-NA), the American Associa-
The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
tion of Airport Executives (AAAE), the National Association of State
Medicine; and the sponsors of the Airport Cooperative Research Program do not endorse
Aviation Officials (NASAO), Airlines for America (A4A), and the Airport products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because
Consultants Council (ACC) as vital links to the airport community; (2) TRB they are considered essential to the object of the report.
as program manager and secretariat for the governing board; and (3) the
FAA as program sponsor. In October 2005, the FAA executed a contract
with the National Academy of Sciences formally initiating the program.
ACRP benefits from the cooperation and participation of airport
professionals, air carriers, shippers, state and local government officials,
equipment and service suppliers, other airport users, and research organi-
zations. Each of these participants has different interests and responsibili-
ties, and each is an integral part of this cooperative research effort.
Research problem statements for ACRP are solicited periodically but
may be submitted to TRB by anyone at any time. It is the responsibility
of the AOC to formulate the research program by identifying the highest
priority projects and defining funding levels and expected products.
Once selected, each ACRP project is assigned to an expert panel
appointed by TRB. Panels include experienced practitioners and
research specialists; heavy emphasis is placed on including airport
professionals, the intended users of the research products. The panels
prepare project statements (requests for proposals), select contractors,
and provide technical guidance and counsel throughout the life of the Published research reports of the
project. The process for developing research problem statements and
AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
selecting research agencies has been used by TRB in managing coop-
erative research programs since 1962. As in other TRB activities, ACRP are available from
project panels serve voluntarily without compensation. Transportation Research Board
Primary emphasis is placed on disseminating ACRP results to the Business Office
500 Fifth Street, NW
intended users of the research: airport operating agencies, service pro- Washington, DC 20001
viders, and academic institutions. ACRP produces a series of research
reports for use by airport operators, local agencies, the FAA, and other and can be ordered through the Internet by going to
interested parties; industry associations may arrange for workshops, https://www.nationalacademies.org
training aids, field visits, webinars, and other activities to ensure that and then searching for TRB
results are implemented by airport industry practitioners. Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non-
governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for
outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the
practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering.
Dr. John L. Anderson is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions
to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent,
objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase
public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation improvements and innovation through
trusted, timely, impartial, and evidence-based information exchange, research, and advice regarding all modes of transportation. The
Board’s varied activities annually engage about 8,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from
the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by
state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation,
and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation.
Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
CRP STAFF FOR ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 212, VOLUME 3

Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Lori L. Sundstrom, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Marci A. Greenberger, Manager, Airport Cooperative Research Program
Theresia H. Schatz, Senior Program Officer
Megan Chamberlain, Senior Program Assistant
Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications
Natalie Barnes, Associate Director of Publications
Sreyashi Roy, Editor
ACRP PROJECT 03-42 PANEL

Field of Policy and Planning
Heather Hasper, DHJ Alaska, San Jose, CA (Chair)
Kerry L. Ahearn, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC
Stephen K. Cusick, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, FL
Adam Durrin, Independent Consultant, Greenwich, NY
Amit Lagu, Independent Consultant, Sunnyvale, CA
Gaël Le Bris, WSP USA, Raleigh, NC
Michael R. Scott, Reno-Stead Airport, Reno, NV
Jeremy Worrall, Alaska DOT and Public Facilities, Fairbanks, AK
Michael DiPilato, FAA Liaison
Jared Raymond, FAA Liaison
Justin Barkowski, American Association of Airport Executives Liaison
Tracy Lamb, Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International Liaison
Christopher J. Oswald, Airports Council International—North America Liaison
Christine Gerencher, TRB Liaison

FOREWORD
By Theresia H. Schatz
Staff Officer
Transportation Research Board
ACRP Research Report 212 provides guidance for airports on Unmanned Aircraft Systems
(UAS) in the following areas:
Topic A—Managing UAS Operations in the Vicinity of an Airport educates airport
operators in best practices for managing non-airport-sponsored UAS and small UAS
(sUAS) activities applicable to airports of all types and categories.
Topic B—Engaging Stakeholders in UAS assists airport operators to effectively engage
stakeholders regarding UAS. The guidance helps airport operators identify potential
stakeholders, assess the positive and negative impacts that UAS operations may have
on them, and determine the best strategy to exchange this information.
Topic C—Incorporating UAS into Airport Infrastructure and Planning provides
guidance on the planning, development, and integration required to review and
implement near-term, mid-term, and long-term facility-use improvements needed
to support UAS at an airport.
Topic D—Potential Use of UAS by Airport Operators explores the use of UAS to
enhance the efficiency of airport operations with guidance materials to help identify,
evaluate, and select UAS-related technologies, including (1) identification and evalu-
ation of the different use cases and the types of enablers needed to support each use
case such as cost-benefit analysis, training, and certification and (2) a framework for
safety management system application and identification of potential risks associated
with UAS.
ACRP Research Report 212 is published in 3 volumes. Topics A and B have been incorpo-
rated in Volume 1: Managing and Engaging Stakeholders on UAS in the Vicinity of Airports,
Topic C has been included in Volume 2: Incorporating UAS into Airport Infrastructure—
Planning Guidebook, and Topic D has been included in Volume 3: Potential Use of UAS by
Airport Operators. This report is supplemented by ACRP Web-Only Document 42: Toolkits
and Resource Library for Airports and Unmanned Aircraft Systems, which can be found on
the TRB website by searching for “ACRP Research Report 212.” The guidance provided
in ACRP Research Report 212 expands upon the guidance provided in ACRP Report 144:
Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) at Airports: A Primer.
UAS activity continues to grow for recreational and non-recreational uses. Recreational
uses include applications in photography, racing, and sport. Non-recreational uses include
law enforcement, emergency response, media coverage, delivery services, surveying, and
utility inspection. Many airport operators see the potential benefits of using UAS for inspec-
tions, wildlife hazard management, security management, and emergency response to
increase efficiency and reduce cost. The rapid increase in UAS activity—coupled with the

diverse stakeholders employing the technology and the evolving regulatory landscape—has
also resulted in airports facing new challenges as they strive to provide users, tenants, and cus-
tomers with a safe, secure, and predictable operating environment. Airports need guidance,
tools, and other resources to effectively address UAS issues and integrate UAS into their day-
to-day operations and planning. There was a need to build on ACRP Report 144: Unmanned
Aircraft Systems (UAS) at Airports: A Primer and ACRP Legal Research Digest 32: Evolving Law
on Airport Implications by Unmanned Aerial Systems to provide additional guidance and
information related to UAS at airports.
A thorough literature review, which included outreach with UAS technology manufac-
turers, former air traffic controllers, airline pilots, and several technical UAS subject matter
experts, was conducted. Case studies were conducted to evaluate guidance methods target-
ing audiences in a variety of stakeholder groups.
Research under ACRP Project 03-42 was led by Booz Allen Hamilton in association with
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University; Hogan Lovells; Kimley-Horn and Associates; Novel
Engineering; Toltz, King, Duvall, Anderson, and Associates; Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.;
and Astrid Aviation and Aerospace. The research identifies airport-specific infrastructure
and facilities needed to support UAS and describes field demonstrations to test various use
cases for potential use of UAS by airport operators.

CONTENTS
1 Chapter 1 Introduction
1 1.1 Background
1 1.2 Overview of Potential Uses of UAS for Airport Operators
2 1.3 Guidebook Audience and Format
3 Chapter 2 UAS Uses at Airports

3 2.1 Airport Uses
3 2.2 UAS Types
4 2.3 Sensors
6 2.4 Summary of UAS Platforms and Sensors
6 2.5 Impacts of UAS Use at Airports
8 2.6 Airports Using UAS
9 Chapter 3 Integrating UAS Related Risk into an SMS Plan

9 3.1 Components of a UAS SMS
10 3.2 Understanding and Assessing Risk of UAS Operations at Airports
13 3.3 Mitigating Risk of UAS Operations
15 Chapter 4 Approach to Conducting UAS Operations

at Airports
15 4.1 Pre-Planning Coordination
18 4.2 Flight Planning
22 4.3 Executing the Operation
25 Chapter 5 UAS Demonstration Case Studies

25 5.1 Front Range Airport
29 5.2 Johnston Regional Airport
32 5.3 Sebring Regional Airport
38 References
A-1 Appendix A UAS Use Case Matrix
B-1 Appendix B Sample UAS SMS Plan
Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to grayscale for printing.
The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.


CHAPTER 1
Introduction
1.1 Background
The rapid introduction of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) into the national airspace
system (NAS) has far-reaching ramifications for the users of existing manned aircraft. Rapid
and large-scale changes due to technological advances can jeopardize the safety of people and
property. Furthermore, FAA’s UAS integration efforts—including counter-UAS mechanisms,
remote identification and tracking, and airspace authorization waivers—have direct implica-
tions for airport operators. The introduction of UAS will pose safety, economic, operational,
regulatory, community, environmental, and infrastructure challenges to airports. These risks
are further complicated by the dynamic nature of UAS technological development. Experi-
ences and lessons learned from recent major aviation system changes demonstrate the critical
importance of ensuring that airports have the resources needed to avoid adverse impacts and
maximize benefits as early as possible. This research effort aims to develop an initial set of
critical resources and tools for use by airport operators.
1.2 Overview of Potential Uses of UAS

for Airport Operators
This guidance document provides airports with resources to appropriately integrate
UAS missions as part of their standard operations. The use of UAS by airports can result in
efficiency gains if implemented effectively. However, improper implementation will cause
safety risks and damage effective airport operations. This document covers several topics.
First, potential uses of UAS at airports will be identified. Some of these uses can be applied
immediately in the short-term. However, others may require changes in the current legal
framework, infrastructure, and operational procedures of airports. When applicable, this
document will indicate if such a change is required to safely and routinely operate UAS.
Implementation timeline will also be described when appropriate.
Second, safety concerns and mitigation solutions related to UAS operations will be
described. Impacts to operations, personnel, and equipment can be mitigated with thorough
coordination, planning, and communication when operating UAS at an airport. A safety
management system (SMS) application describing this approach is included in this document
to provide a framework for safety considerations when implementing UAS.
Third, stakeholder coordination best practices will be analyzed. Airport operations have
many stakeholders at play. For UAS operations to take place successfully, coordination is
necessary among these stakeholders. The lessons learned from past experiences as well as best
practices are documented. Airport operators will need to find and identify the stakeholders
1

2 Airports and Unmanned Aircraft Systems
most pertinent to their operations. They should consider involving stakeholders in regula-
tory, local communities, emergency personnel, operators, airlines, and any other airport
personnel whom might be impacted.
Fourth, regulatory requirements are identified. The fast-paced regulatory landscape
governing UAS operations requires airport operators to maintain current knowledge of the
requirements to fly UAS. This document provides an overview of the current parameters.
Before conducting UAS operations, airport operators should have a plan to work through
relevant authorization processes. Operators must understand the purpose of their UAS opera-
tion, the location of the operation, and any property or personnel who might be impacted. The
operator must reference specific regulations and identify those that pertain to the scope of their
operation.
As with any flight, the UAS operation needs to have a clear and concise flight plan. This
helps maintain a smooth, purposeful operation that yields the expected results. A schedule of
events with clearly identified mission areas, staging areas, and other such areas that the opera-
tion will occupy should be provided and understood by all who will participate. At the very
least, a general understanding of the area and times impacted by UAS operations should be
understood by all at the airport.
1.3 Guidebook Audience and Format

This guidebook is aimed at airport operators or personnel interested in integrating UAS
to fulfill airport operations and expand their capabilities at the airport. This document is not
intended for recreational users who are looking to fly UAS at an airport.
This document is structured into chapters that will walk airport operators and personnel
through how to use UAS at their airport. It is meant to provide a format that will allow
airport operators and personnel the ability to pick up and identify the most pertinent infor-
mation to them based on their interests.
Chapter 2 provides a description of the types of UAS operations that can be implemented
at airports. It is intended to provide some examples of ways airports can use UAS. Chapter 3
details how airport SMS plans can be enhanced to include UAS operations. Chapter 4 details
the elements of planning a UAS operation at airports. Chapter 5 describes the UAS operations
that were conducted to test the UAS operational planning guidance that is presented in this
document. The guidance on UAS applications relies on past data collection efforts (such as
workshops and airport interviews) and is organized more broadly into the most prevalent
and in-demand uses of UAS at airports.
An overarching, high-level, approach to conducting UAS operations is included to allow
quick reference by airport operators who want to operate UAS at their airport. This informa-
tion is meant to act as guidance that airport operators can use and apply to their airports.
The case studies are intended to provide more detailed examples, lessons learned, and best
practices gathered that airport operators can apply to their unique situations.

CHAPTER 2
UAS Uses at Airports
2.1 Airport Uses

Rapidly-improving UAS platforms and sensors have resulted in the ever-increasing
amount of UAS uses at airports. UAS and sensor technologies can help airports meet current
FAA-mandated inspections, more thoroughly secure or monitor their property, inspect
otherwise hard to reach areas, manage wildlife in the vicinity, and help respond to emer-
gencies. This chapter provides an overview of several of the immediate applicable UAS uses
at airports. In addition, the team has compiled a matrix of possible UAS uses from the data
collection, outreach, and literature review efforts. This is provided in Appendix A and will
help airport operators understand some of the more nuanced UAS uses at airports.
While this chapter provides guidance that is common to most airports, airport operators
must plan for the parameters that are unique to their airport when understanding how a
UAS use may fit into their operations. This chapter is not meant to highlight or answer all
these potential considerations. Rather, it is meant to offer a quick reference for airport opera-
tors to select the UAS uses that could best serve their needs and airport. Table 1 provides a
summary of the most common types of UAS uses at airports.
2.2 UAS Types

Because small UAS (sUAS) are common and commercially accessible, guidance in this
document focuses on these UAS types. These operations are regulated by the FAA’s Part 107
rule. These are platforms that weigh less than 55lbs, do not extend beyond visual line of sight
(BVLOS) operations, and perform operations below 400ft AGL. Several off-the-shelf UAS
platforms exist that allow airport operators to quickly implement UAS operations. These
platforms are often supported by manufacturer warranties and maintenance services. How-
ever, given the diverse needs of airports, industry and engineering firms have also created
unique, prototype, or limited-run platforms that help fill niche demands through the use of
new technology. This guidance is focused on those platforms that are widely-available and
off-the-shelf.
There are many factors an operator must consider when choosing the appropriate type of
UAS platform. Some factors to consider are the scope of the operation, anticipated payload,
mission duration, traffic avoidance procedures, and time. UAS types should be categorized
based on their platform size and capability. The sensor suites and potential uses relating to this
UAS platform are also included in this chapter.
3

Table 1. UAS use, purpose, outcomes/improvements,

implementation time.
UAS Use Purpose Outcomes/Improvements Timeline
Pavement Inspection Inspecting of runways, taxiways, Data collected that can be Short
aprons, and ramps to meet any referenced and analyzed to
FAA-mandated condition levels understand pavement condition
or to conduct any other and support infrastructure
condition assessment. decision making.
Facility Inspection Inspecting of hangars, terminal Dependent on the facility Short

buildings, tower, NAVAIDs, or inspected, data collected can
any other on-site infrastructure yield an understanding of
that isn’t pavement. Gather an thermal properties of buildings,
understanding of facility assets deterioration or condition of
to assess and prioritize needs. buildings and tower, and
condition of NAVAIDs and
airport lighting, such as PAPI or
runway lights.
Perimeter Use of UAS to monitor and Improved surveillance of airport Short

Monitoring scan the perimeter of the property through thermal or
airport property. Constant visual live-feed or recorded
surveillance and sweeps or video. This can improve upon
hotspot monitoring can be fixed HD cameras by adding the
accomplished depending on flexibility to maneuver and
airport need. capture blind spots.
Wildlife Management Use of UAS to monitor wildlife A safer deterrence, a platform to Short
in the vicinity of the airport, help raise situation awareness, or
interdict with any wildlife more immediate and effective
intrusions, and offer a deterrent interdiction methods to prevent
through visual or audio the impact of wildlife in the
interference. vicinity of the airport on
operations.
Emergency Use of UAS to supplement on- New solution to responding to Medium

Response site emergency personnel, to emergency situations. Among
augment existing capabilities, or other answers, tethered
to provide new capabilities such platforms can offer mobile and
as mobile lighting, surveillance, indefinite lighting sources to
or appropriate resources improve crew visibility and
allocation. Thermal sensors illumination at night. Airports
could also provide surveillance can quickly mobilize UAS
at night. surveillance platforms to
understand the scope of the
emergency and allocate
appropriate resources
2.3 Sensors
This section covers the basic sensor suites commonly found on sUAS platforms. These
sensors can perform most uses that may be of interest to airport operators and are compa
tible with most off-the-shelf UAS platforms. An overview of the sensor and the output is
described in this section.
2.3.1 RGB/High-Resolution Video/Photography

2.3.1.1 Overview
High-resolution RGB cameras are the most common and widely used sensor on sUAS.
This sensor allows suitable data collection for most inspection, monitoring, or security needs.

UAS Uses at Airports 5
Suitable software photogrammetric surveys can be done using this sensor. However, RGB
sensors may have limited resolution and may require proper lighting. If the objective of
an operation is to obtain imagery, this operation must take place in a time window that
offers enough lighting to sufficiently illuminate the target. This can impact winter opera-
tions when daylight is limited. Additionally, the altitude of flights must be flown such that the
sensor can collect imagery at the desired resolution. The lower the altitude, the higher the
resolution. However, lowering flying missions may take longer as the image or video taken
can cover less area in a given amount of time. Identifying desired resolution, altitude, and
hours of operation are all key parts of flight planning.
2.3.1.2 Output
Data collected for RGB sensors will result in outputs in the form of photography or video.
Basic file types are recognized by many forms of software. Off-the-shelf software can create
photogrammetric mapping to allow for measurements and planning purposes. Data collected
can easily be stored for future referencing and comparative analysis. For example, this type
of data analysis can help with maintaining a record of pavement degradation or construction
progress over time.
2.3.2 Thermal
2.3.2.1 Overview
Thermal imagery can capture images that would otherwise not be picked up by an RGB
sensor because of lack of light. Thermal imagery captures the target’s heat signatures which
allows for expanded operation hours, detection of signals, and objects that are visually
difficult to detect. Thermal sensors are most useful for wildlife management, facility inspec-
tion, and land management. Thermal sensors can allow sUAS operators to pick up wildlife
in the vicinity of the airport easily at all hours, understand thermal properties and inefficien-
cies of buildings, and detect personnel that may cause a threat or intrusion at the airport.
2.3.2.2 Output
Thermal sensors will result in heat-based imagery and video useful for analyzing thermal
inefficiencies of building roofing or materials which may impact heating and cooling demands
(FLIR Systems AB, 2011). Video, life-feed or recorded, can help detect wildlife in the vicinity
of the airport. This is particularly useful for areas with vegetation or forests lining the airport
perimeter as visual detection is difficult.
2.3.3 Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR)

2.3.3.1 Overview
LiDAR sensors can capture data that require elevation and structural data resolution. Using
light emitted by laser, drone-based LiDAR is capable of achieving 100 to 500 points per meter
resolution (PrecisionHawk, n.d.). This offers high-resolution data capable of generating
many products. LiDAR is one of the more expensive sensor options available, however,
recent years have seen the technology becoming more affordable with that trend expected
to continue.
2.3.3.2 Output
This resolution allows LiDAR collected data to be used to create orthomosaic images,
3D models, point clouds, and digital surface models. The high-resolution data generated
provides users with flexibility when using the data.

2.4 Summary of UAS Platforms and Sensors

Table 2 below summarizes common types of UAS platforms, off-the-shelf examples available,
types of sensors, sample uses, and advantages/disadvantages of the platforms and sensors.
2.5 Impacts of UAS Use at Airports

Given the many types of UAS platforms, sensors, and applications, it is important to
understand the variety of impacts that result from UAS use at airports. These impacts can
be categorized as safety, efficiency, and infrastructure. These impacts are summarized in
Figure 1.
2.5.1 Safety
UAS integration can impact safety positively and negatively in many ways depending
on how integration and implementation are handled. Services that currently present risk
Table 2. List of UAS platforms, sensors, uses, pros, and cons.
Platform Off-the-Shelf Sensors Potential Pros Cons

Examples Uses
Rotorcraft DJI Mavic RGB/High- Pavement Most Relatively

Resolution Inspection versatile of slow ground
Parrot ANAFI
Imagery/Video platforms speed
Facility
DJI Matrice 200 with its
LiDAR Inspection Low
series ability to
Endurance
Thermal Short-Term hover in
DJI Matrice 600 (short mission
Perimeter place and
3D Robotics Solo Monitoring times)
move
DJI Inspire 2 laterally in Light payload
Wildlife
any direction. capacity
Management
StormBee
Land Survey Can host a
wide arsenal
of sensors to
help
accomplish
any mission
Fixed-Wing AeroVironment RGB/High- Pavement Relatively Less

RQ-11B Raven Resolution Inspection fast ground versatility,
Imagery/Video speed limited return
PrecisionHawk Land Survey
to home
FireFly 6 Thermal Greater
Air Traffic options
endurance
LiDAR Control Tower
Less
Inspection Medium
Hyperspectral maneuverability
payload
Surveillance
Multispectral capacity Challenges
Perimeter obtaining
LiDAR
Monitoring desired
resolution
due to speed
Tethered Elistair Orion Thermal Surveillance Indefinite Small spatial

mission time coverage
Hoverfly RBG/High- Emergency
Resolution Response Safety of Larger
Imagery/Video tether logistical/
alleviates equipment
lost-link footprint
concerns
Limited
Nearly mission
autonomous versatility

UAS Uses at Airports 7
Safety
• UAS operators that are unaware of manned aircraft operation (e.g., not in
constant communication with air traffic control or relevant radio
frequencies) pose a collision threat.
• Manned aircraft pilot will have a challenging experience spotting sUAS and
may not be aware of UAS operations in the vicinity.
• UAS operations can also pose a threat to people within their flight path
(such as airport staff below).
• Services that currently present risk to personnel, such as air traffic control
tower inspections or runway inspection, can be supplemented by UAS to
minimize worker risk.
Efficiency
• UAS could improve the efficiency of current processes such as runway
inspections, making it a more cost effective process.
• UAS operations can interfere with manned flight takeoff and landing, which
could cause delays.
• Lack of appropriate coordination with stakeholders (such as local
community members or airport tenants) could raise unnecessary emergency
alerts that delay UAS operations and diminish its efficiency.
Infrastructure
• UAS can be used to survey existing facilities at airports to provide data on
infrastructure health.
• Tall buildings, such as air traffic control towers, are obstacles that can be
damaged if UAS are improperly operated.
Figure 1. A summary of the impacts of UAS operations

within the vicinity of an airport.
to personnel, such as air traffic control tower inspections or runway

inspection, can be supplemented by UAS to minimize worker risk. Best Practice
Reducing the workload and vulnerability of airport personnel creates a
safer environment for the UAS operators, airport personnel, and pilots. Creating a Safer Environment
Conversely, introducing and using UAS at airports poses safety Before conducting any UAS operations,
risks to routine manned aircraft operations. Mismanaged UAS can airport managers should alert any
threaten routine operations when air traffic control (ATC) is unable to personnel and flights to the presence of
adequately maintain separation and understand the scope and location the UAS operation. They should concisely
of the UAS. UAS also pose safety risks to airport personnel unaware convey the time, location, altitude,
of the UAS operating in the vicinity. They may find themselves enter- and purpose of the UAS operation in
ing the area of operation unknowingly and put themselves at risk of this alert.
injury. Finally, while equipment failure is rare, it is still something that
must be considered and a falling UAS can pose severe injury risk.
2.5.2 Efficiency
UAS can reduce the labor—both time and personnel—needed to accomplish most tasks. The
speed and versatility of UAS ensures that space can be covered both vertically and horizontally
and over large areas. For instance, while traditional methods of pavement inspection involve a
person walking representative samples of the runway, an unmanned aircraft can scan these
areas more thoroughly, collecting a better sample while not putting a human life at risk on the
runway. Additionally, an unmanned aircraft can quickly ascend and survey the top of a building,
tower, or instrument. This helps keep the hours of labor required to a minimum and increases
efficiency.
A caveat to this analysis is that in the current market and uncertain regulatory environ-
ment, adoption of UAS is not guaranteed to increase efficiency in all airport operations and
should be applied diligently. The cost of entry is the biggest factor when considering UAS.

To purchase a platform or contract a UAS operator to perform an operation is typically the

largest cost an airport will incur when using UAS. Labor costs are likely to decrease for the
majority of uses and personnel and equipment required is also likely to decrease.
2.5.3 Infrastructure
UAS can help airports maintain and utilize their infrastructure more efficiently and intel-
ligently by using the additional data collected and capabilities provided. In the short- to
medium-term sUAS integration does not require any major changes to existing airport
infrastructure. However, when considering more long-term UAS uses such as passenger
transport, package transport, or logistical support, there may be some needed updates to
the existing airport infrastructure to aid the cohabitation of manned and unmanned vehicles.
Airport infrastructure planning needs are described in more detail in Volume 2 of this report,
Incorporating UAS into Airport Infrastructure—Planning Guidebook.
2.6 Airports Using UAS

Nationally, several airports have taken an active role in addressing the emergence of UAS,
providing guidance to UAS operators, and pioneering new uses and techniques for integration
with manned operations. In particular, Golden Triangle Regional Airport (GTR) and Ventura
County Airports, and Dallas Fort Worth Airport (DFW) have developed procedures supporting
the expansion of safe UAS operations. As guidance continues to be developed by the FAA,
airports will continue to play an important leadership role in establishing best practices and
will serve as examples for new regulations.
For example, the FAA has determined that airports completing independent safety risk
assessments and safety risk management plans will not be required to participate in the
Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC) systems. Golden Triangle
Regional Airport has developed its own safety risk management plan. As part of this plan, UAS
operators and ATC coordinate over the radio and via ground communications. This is in spite
of the fact that the FAA has not recommended that UAS pilots use the same frequency/spectrum
as ATC. GTR’s procedures allow ATC personnel and manned aircraft users to be aware of
UAS operating in the vicinity and allows the UAS user to apply the traditional “see and avoid”
procedures for collision avoidance. As a result of enhanced overall safety and greater flexibility
in handling manned and unmanned operations, the airport continues to attract both manned
and unmanned businesses. In January 2019, GTR organized a seminar, bringing together UAS
operators from Columbus Air Force Base, Mississippi State University, and industry to focus on
the regulation and use of UAS as they continue to coordinate efforts to bring attention to the
rapidly occurring changes in the industry (Golden Triangle Regional Airport, 2019).
DFW’s support of innovative uses of UAS will also be an example for other airports to
follow. In March 2018, first responders received permission from the FAA to operate UAS
over the airfield at DFW to benefit public safety (Robertson, 2018). Additional testing has
been pioneered at DFW including FAA UAS detection systems (FAA, 2017a).
Ventura County Airports also provides an example of how to communicate with the airport
community. The detailed guidance on their website provided for recreational and commercial
UAS operators allows for safer flights near the airport. There are links to FAA guidance, custom
“No Drone” zone maps for Ventura County airspace, and a one-page flyer that includes a list
of relevant airport contacts (County of Ventura, 2019). The tools used by Ventura County can
be particularly useful for airports planning on increased UAS activity.

CHAPTER 3
Integrating UAS Related Risk

into an SMS Plan
In order to deal with the impacts of UAS operations in airports described in Sections 2.5.1,
2.5.2, and 2.5.3, airport operators should consider the inclusion of UAS in their SMS plans.
An SMS plan is a system established within an organization to address safety risks to people,
property, and business needs through the declaration of an organizational safety policy,
promotion of an overall culture of safety within the organization, safety risk management
(SRM) to address and mitigate potential safety hazards, and a safety assurance policy to
ensure long-term safety is maintained as it evolves. An SMS document captures this system
so that it can be disseminated to the appropriate stakeholders, defines clear instructions on the
system and its execution, and can be shared with others as part of certification, operational
approval, or demonstrating to others the organization’s safety protections. When an airport
becomes a UAS operator, the incorporation of UAS operations into the SMS represents a
best practice to be adopted.
Depending on airport size the parties responsible for incorporating UAS related risk into
the SMS plan will change. This may mean that the airport director is responsible for this at
smaller airports while the safety division or operations division may be responsible at larger
airports. In some instances, airports may even have a dedicated UAS or emerging technology
division that should be responsible for UAS integration. Like a traditional airport SMS, which
focuses upon the airport’s routine operations, potential safety hazards of those operations, and
the mitigation strategies, an SMS incorporating UAS operations serves a similar role regard-
ing the enterprise of the airport’s UAS operation. This includes the identification of safety
hazards relevant to the airport’s environment, the intended operations, technologies to be
used, and mitigation strategies for each. It should also define the mechanisms and tools for a
safety review board to evaluate proposed operations to determine that the operation does not
present additional hazards, and when additional hazards are identified, they are appropriately
mitigated to the satisfaction of a safety review board.
3.1 Components of a UAS SMS

A UAS SMS plan requires an airport to conduct an analysis of UAS operations in the
context of the following areas.
• Safety Policy and Objectives: This section outlines the responsibilities for the implementation
of the SMS. This includes an individual with overall managerial responsibility as well as
potential advisory groups such as an initial review committee, safety review board, and
UAS-specific oversight committees. This section should also refer to emergency response
plans as well as identify operational safety factors to be considered during a UAS operation.
This includes safety equipment to be used, hazard zones, local UAS operational requirements,
9

as well as FAA requirements to operate UAS (e.g., Certificates of Waiver or Authorization

that need to be filed).
• Safety Risk Management: This section should report the process by which risks are identi-
fied, analyzed, and mitigated due to UAS operations. Section 3.2 covers the specifics of how
to identify and analyze risk specific to UAS operations.
• Safety Assurance: The safety assurance aspect of an SMS plan covers the audit and measure-
ment methods used to monitor the quality of an SMS plan. It covers monitoring and report-
ing procedures and outlines the risk auditing duties of the responsible parties identified in
the Safety Policy and Objectives section.
• Safety Promotion: A final component of the SMS plan includes an educational factor
that outlines communication methods to promote safety. UAS-specific courses can be
identified here.
An example of this plan used at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and Daytona Beach
Airport can be found in Appendix B.
3.2 Understanding and Assessing Risk

of UAS Operations at Airports
UAS present unique challenges for airport operators to uphold the no-risk approach of
manned operations (NASEM, 2018). This section will provide guidance on how airport
operators can identify the risk presented by UAS operations, how they can evaluate this risk,
and how to help mitigate this risk to an acceptable level.
3.2.1 Identifying Sources of Risk Due to UAS Operations

Airports should create a process to help them identify which risks are associated with any
UAS operation. The procedures and technologies presented by UAS operations have new risks
associated with them. However, airports can also utilize past incident or accident reports to
help them adapt to and identify these future risks. Additionally, airports can form a risk
assessment team to help track, identify, and prevent risks associated with UAS operations
as well as procedures to implement when an incident happens. Some risks include:
• Collision Risk: Both commercial and general aviation operators will likely not have the
primary surveillance equipment to identify sUAS in their vicinity (regardless of whether
the sUAS has a detect and avoid system onboard). (Matthews, Frisbie, and Cistone, 2017)
• Airspace Congestion: Additional aircraft, such as UAS, will add to the air traffic control
demands of an airport. (Matthews, Frisbie, and Cistone, 2017)
• Vehicle Hazards: UAS vehicles could malfunction in a multitude of ways including loss
of control, lost link/communication, and failed landings/takeoff (Barr et al., 2017). These
malfunction factors could result in many impacts ranging from property damage to harms
to individuals.
3.2.2 Evaluating Risk of UAS Operations

Once risks are identified, airports need to identify appropriate metrics for risk evaluation.
While airports can choose from many different metrics published by the FAA, Embry-Riddle
Aeronautical University, and others, it is helpful for airports to ensure that a standardized
method is in place and routinely used. Standardization helps the airport understand the risk and
prevent ad hoc or subjective risk evaluation scenarios. A risk evaluation, based on Embry-Riddle

Integrating UAS Related Risk into an SMS Plan 11
Aeronautical University’s Safety Management System Manual (2014), is provided below as an

example of how to analyze risk and use a risk matrix (Figure 2) for categorization:
• Evaluate likelihood of an incident occurring and the resulting severity of that incident;
• Identify hazards that contribute to the risk and the associated consequences of each hazard;
• Determine the Risk Assessment Code based upon likelihood and severity of identified hazards;
• Determine if assessed risk is suitable for approval;
• If not suitable, further assess hazard and implement control measure(s) to mitigate hazard;
• Determine the Risk Assessment Code following implementation of control measure(s); and
• Indicate the final code for the (now acceptable risk).
Required Definitions:
LIKELIHOOD
Frequent: The event is likely to occur many times. It will be continuously experienced unless
action is taken to change events.
Likely: The activity or event is expected to occur 50% to 90% of the time. It will occur often
if events follow a normal process or procedure and is repeatable.
Occasional: The event is likely to occur infrequently or irregularly, or 25% to 49% of the
time. Event is sporadic in nature.
Seldom: The event is likely to occur intermittently, or 1% to 25% of the time. It is not likely
that the event will happen.
Improbable: It is almost inconceivable that the event will occur. There is less than 1% chance
of occurrence.
SEVERITY
Table 3 breaks down severity into five distinct categories: catastrophic, critical, moderate, minor,
and negligible.
3.2.3 Assessment of Risk

Once risks are identified and evaluated, airports will need to assess risks associated with UAS
integration. Figure 3 is provided as an example to help complete this assessment and risk analysis.
The figure prompts the airport user to consider the impacts (reason for risk assessment), identi-
fied risks, and the initial assessment of the risk based on its likelihood and severity. The airport
can then use the identified risk to inform their decision and acceptance level of the potential
consequences. Additionally, airports should consider any risk controls that they have in place.
Risk controls will be explained in more detail in the next section.
Periodic review and use of this document will help airports iterate their risk assessment and
control procedures to ensure that all risks are being captured and controlled as best as possible.
Risk Severity
Risk
Catastrophic Critical Moderate Minor Negligible
Likelihood A B C D E
5 – Frequent 5A 5B 5C 5D 5E
4 – Likely 4A 4B 4C 4D 4E
3 – Occasional 3A 3B 3C 3D 3E
2 – Seldom 2A 2B 2C 2D 2E
1 – Improbable 1A 1B 1C 1D 1E
Figure 2. Example of risk matrix.

Table 3. Description of severity categories.
Severity Description
Catastrophic • Equipment destroyed

• Multiple deaths
• System wide shut-down and negative revenue impact
• Large environmental impact
• Loss (or breakdown) of an entire system or sub-system
• Security criminal investigations and penalties to groups or individuals
• Willful violation of any safety regulation that could result in serious
injury or death
• Potential of suspending flight operations
• Potential for uncontrollable public relations event(s)
Critical • A large reduction in safety margins, physical distress and/or workload
such that operators cannot be relied upon to perform their tasks
accurately or completely
• Serious injury or death, multiple long-term injuries and personal claims
• Accident or serious incident with injuries and/or major to moderate
equipment damage
• Potential criminal penalty
• Medium environmental impact
• Potential moderate damage to an aircraft (out of service >5 days)
• A non-compliance finding that results in major systems, process or
operational degradation
• A security finding requiring immediate corrective action prior to
continued operation
• Reoccurring violation of any safety regulation resulting in serious injury
• An employee/customer injury/broken bone. Injury resulting in
hospitalization (other than observation)
• Moderate enterprise risk involving executive management involvement
• Very large public relations impact requiring resources to manage
information
• System deficiencies leading to poor flight line performance and chronic
disruption to the flight activity schedules
• Potential loss (breakdown) of entire sub-system or divisional operation
• Production errors containing regulatory violations that pose direct
consequence to the operation
Moderate • Accident or incident with minor injury and/or minor aircraft damage
• Non-life-threatening employee/customer injury, with recording of Lost
Time injury
• Small environmental impact
• Security finding requiring a corrective action plan
• Production element errors that may pose indirect consequences to the
operation
• Aircraft damage resulting in out of service < 5 days
• Potential to cause sustained irregular operations until issue is resolved
• Additional public relations efforts and resources required
Minor • No regulatory action
• No environmental impact anticipated
• No evident security threat affected
• Minor errors in completed policy and procedures
• Production errors containing quality system and/or opportunities for
improvement
• No equipment damage to slight damage – outcome deferrable with no
operational impact
• $0 regulatory fines
• No public relations impact
Negligible • No regulatory violation
• No environmental impact
• No security element affected
• Initiative delivered against policy and procedures
• No public relations impact
• No aircraft damage and no operational impact
• Finding element present limited opportunities for improvement

Integrating UAS Related Risk into an SMS Plan 13
INITIAL OPERATIONS RISK ASSESSMENT DOCUMENTATION

Risk Assessment For: Organization & Location Today’s Date: Click for date
Reason for Risk Assessment (select all that apply):
New System Design Modification to an Existing Operation or
Procedure
Change to Existing System Design Operational Environmental Change
New Operational Procedure Ineffective Risk Control
Other:
PROCESS/SYSTEM ANALYSIS
Brief description of process of system to be assessed:
RISK ANALYSIS / HAZARD IDENTIFICATION

HAZARD POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCE(S)
H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
(INITIAL) RISK ASSESSMENT
Initial Risk Assessment Code: -Select- -Select-
PROPOSED RISK CONTROL(S)
H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
(FINAL) RISK ASSESSMENT
Final Risk Assessment Code: -Select- -Select-
Risk Severity
Risk Likelihood
Catastrophic (A) Critical (B) Moderate (C) Minor (D) Negligible (E)
5 – Frequent 5A 5B 5C 5D 5E
4 – Likely 4A 4B 4C 4D 4E
3 – Occasional 3A 3B 3C 3D 3E
2 – Seldom 2A 2B 2C 2D 2E
1 – Improbable 1A 1B 1C 1D 1E
Figure 3. Risk assessment documentation.
It is recommended that airports perform another iteration of their risk assessment analysis after
a major change such as number or type of operations on the airport, changes in airport design
or procedures, or integration of a new technology. The ultimate purpose of this method is to
provide a structure for airports to be able to transparently report and address risks. This can
then be applied to UAS integration as appropriate.
3.3 Mitigating Risk of UAS Operations

3.3.1 Risk Control
Risk controls involve selecting and implementing one or more control methods for mitigating
risks. Selecting the most appropriate risk treatment option involves balancing the costs and efforts

of implementation against the benefits derived, with regard to legal, regulatory, and other require-
ments such as social responsibility and the protection of the natural environment.
Risk control measures such as NOTAMs and new procedures can also introduce secondary
risks that need to be assessed, treated, monitored, and reviewed. Some examples of secondary
risks associated with mitigation are included below:
• Information Overload: As airports strive to make their tenants and traffic aware of any UAS
operations, they will publish NOTAMs, broadcast on their automatic terminal information
service (ATIS), and other forms of notices. However, this additional load of information is
susceptible to being buried or lost within the already large amount of information pilots and
operators digest prior to any mission.
• New Procedures/Complex Procedures: To help integrate UAS into normal airport operations
new procedures will be introduced to help avoid conflict. However, these procedures will
need to be carefully thought through and studied to ensure they are not adding a layer of
complexity to an already dynamic airport environment. As well, these procedures will take
time to integrate and the risk of incident/accident is greatest as they’re first introduced.
• Improper/Lack of Communication: Alongside the addition of new procedures will be the
communication necessary for these missions. While the communication protocol for these
missions should be iterated upon and agreed upon by any parties involved there is still room
for error.
These secondary risks will be incorporated into the same treatment plan as the original risk
and not treated as a new risk.
Mitigation options are discussed in the next section.
3.3.2 Mitigation
Airports can take several actions to help mitigate risk and safely integrate UAS operations.
Some recommended actions include:
• Continuing to collect empirical data to categorize and evaluate the risk associated with UAS,
• Assessing whether the level of acceptance and authorization of any operation is equal to or
greater than the level of risk presented by the operation,
• Developing training for integration of expected UAS operations and making the training
recurring and based on past performances and lessons learned,
• Reporting mandatory incidents/accidents and capturing all UAS related incidents.
• Performing routine safety reviews in the context of the existing SMS.

CHAPTER 4
Approach to Conducting
UAS Operations at Airports
Once an SMS plan that includes UAS is in place and the risks have been evaluated, airports
can begin planning UAS operations. This chapter will lay out an approach that airport operators
can take to integrating and conducting UAS operations at their airport. A general approach will
be described which can be adopted by airports. Airport operators should be aware of any unique
considerations of their airport or situation that may alter the steps provided in this chapter.
4.1 Pre-Planning Coordination

Before planning any UAS mission details, airports should coordinate with multiple parties
and stakeholders that may be involved or affected by UAS activity at the airport. This is a crucial
stage in conducting UAS operations. Successfully and effectively coordinating prior to the
operation will help ensure safety is prioritized, all resources are available, critical parties are
aware, and clear understanding is developed to help guide the remaining planning.
4.1.1 Stakeholder and Community Engagement

There are many stakeholders that could potentially be impacted by
UAS operations. Depending on airport size, operations, and proximity Best Practice
to any residential or commercial areas, the list of targeted parties for
engagement will change. For example, a non-towered Class G airport Engaging with Local Communities
without scheduled operations will not need to involve airlines and Engaging with local communities
operations personnel in the same manners as a Classes C or B airport. increases awareness of UAS operations
When considering who to engage, airports would need to consider any and addresses community concerns.
parties or personnel that will be impacted or aware of their UAS opera- Coordinating with community officials
tions. Some examples of who to consider are: is a necessary step.
• State DOT
• Fixed base operators
• Air traffic personnel
• Operations personnel
• System approach for safety oversight offices
• Emergency personnel
• Local law enforcement
• Airfield maintenance or technical personnel
• Airlines
• On-site transportation personnel
• Hangar/parking tenants
• On-field companies (gliders, schools, cargo)
15

Airports will need to consider their role and impact in the community and will need to
identify the local stakeholders they want to engage for safety as well as public relations, such as
demonstrating to the public the benefits of utilizing a new technology. Airports should consider
communities based on their proximity, sensitivity, and participation. A concise communica-
tions plan to engage these parties is an effective and recommended step. The components of
a communication plan are shown in Figure 4.
Airports should consider multiple forms of media to communicate the operation. Figure 5
shows an example of a flyer that was distributed and posted around the airport a week prior
to the operation at JNX. This flyer was used to help raise awareness of any operators or personnel
at the airport. Also, for this operation, the team included an addendum to the ATIS message
that informed local traffic of the UAS activity at the airport. Additional
information can also be found in Volume 2 of this report, Incorporat-
ing UAS into Airport Infrastructure—Planning Guidebook.
Best Practice
Engaging FAA 4.1.2 FAA Engagement
Have a clear and open line to the FAA to Airport managers should also communicate with FAA personnel
maintain routine check-ins and updates prior to any UAS operation. Contact the Flight Standards District
regarding the UAS operation. There Office (FSDO) so that they are aware of the planning of UAS activity
should be a consistent POC from the and the scope of the operations. As well, contact a representative
FAA FSDO or Regional Offices to act as at the appropriate Regional and District Offices. Airport managers
a liaison. should begin these discussions by proposing intended UAS operations.
These conversations should have a clear purpose, acknowledge safety
Figure 4. Example template of a communication plan.

Approach to Conducting UAS Operations at Airports 17
Figure 5. Example of a flyer advertising UAS operations.
and risk concerns and how to mitigate them, and remain open and flexible to their concerns
and suggestions. These discussions should occur regularly until the operation is conducted. Imple-
menting this early in operational planning would ensure that FAA considerations and concerns
are addressed in an immediate and real time manner. Doing so also helps mitigate risk, improves
safety, and reduces the operation impact. Early engagement will also help target the appropriate
Part 107 waivers, authorizations, or other FAA approvals that may be required for operation.
4.1.3 Air Traffic Control Engagement

For any towered airport, discussions must begin early. Like FAA
engagement, airport managers should also engage with their tower
regularly. Ensure tower operators are plugged-in and understand
the plan for the operation at every step. It is essential to retain this
Best Practice
communication to iterate on the operation and any planning. The
workload of an air traffic controller changes based on the airport and Working with the Tower
it is the duty of the airport to understand and develop a mutually
Communicate openly and often with the
agreeable plan for executing the UAS operation given the understanding
tower. Make sure they understand the
of the tower’s workload and their ability to handle requests. It is also
latest plan for the operation and iterate
advantageous to take this time to develop a plan for communication
a communication plan based on this
between the UAS operator and tower. The airport manager and UAS
understanding.
operator should be clear about how to handle the remote pilot in
command (RPIC) of the UAS to communicate with the tower. Also,

identify when, how, and where to communicate. For example, will a discrete frequency or
an already established frequency be used? How will the UAS operator communicate? Hand-held
radio or vehicle-mounted radio? Crowding of ATC communications should also be considered
when developing the communications plan. These are just some of the questions that will
need to be answered. This is a discussion that should remain open and fluid allowing for
plenty of iteration based on preference and anticipated workload by the tower.
4.1.4 Waiver and Authorization Process

In the early phases of the coordination process, it is important to consider what Part 107
authorizations, waivers, or other FAA approvals may need to be pursued. This consideration
should be informed by the FAA engagement, understanding of the UAS operation, and any
additional consultation with airport legal parties.
The FAA offers step-by-step guidance to help identify what waivers are necessary for an airport
(FAA, 2018a). However, the onus is on the airport operating the UAS to fully understand the
scope and impact of their operation to help them answer important questions that could
justify a waiver, authorization, or other FAA approval. For example, the airport must know:
• Will the operation be flying over non-operation personnel?
• Will there be a need to fly over 400 ft AGL?
• Will multiple aircraft be flown at the same time by the same pilot?
• Will there be a need to fly beyond the pilot’s visual line-of-sight?
• Will the flight be from a moving vehicle or aircraft?
• Will there be a need to fly in reduced visibility or cloudy flight conditions?
• Will any of it take place at night?
• Is it in controlled or restricted airspace?
Regarding controlled airspace, the airport may consider whether to pursue an airspace
waiver versus an airspace authorization. According to the FAA, an airspace authorization is
“[a]ppropriate for short-term operations in a specific location within the class of airspace
requested (less than 6 months)” and an airspace waiver is “[a]ppropriate for recurring opera-
tions over an extended period of time and may require broad area or blanket access to the class
of airspace requested (6 months to 2 years)” (FAA, 2017a).
Once these questions have been answered and the corresponding authorizations and waivers
identified, the airport should begin writing and submitting the waiver request through the
FAA’s DroneZone. Instructions for completing these waivers or authorizations are provided by
the FAA (FAA, 2018b). In some areas of the country, airports may be able to submit airspace
authorization requests using the FAA Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability
(“LAANC”) system (FAA, 2018c). Where active, LAANC provides a streamlined automated
process to apply for and receive airspace authorizations in near real-time for operations in
controlled airspace. It is important to note that LAANC cannot currently be used to obtain an
airspace authorization that is combined with a Part 107 operational waiver. For example, if an
airport holds a night waiver and wants to fly at night in controlled airspace, LAANC cannot be
used to obtain the airspace authorization. Instead, the airspace authorization would need to
be applied for using the FAA DroneZone.
4.2 Flight Planning

In addition to identifying the appropriate waivers, airport UAS operators must develop
a flight plan that describes how any UAS activity will be conducted. The flight plan should
include the details that answer the who, what, where, and when of the operation. The

flight plan will guide any parties involved as they execute and provide a common ground for
reference and understanding by any stakeholders, communities, or interested parties.
Some example items from flight plans of previously conducted UAS demonstrations are
included in this section. Figure 6 offers an overview of components of a UAS operation
schedule.
4.2.1 Establishing Mission Parameters

Airports must have a clear understanding of where and when the
mission will take place. It will be necessary to determine the time and Best Practice
location of any activities and understand what the max altitude will
be and the estimated duration of missions. These parameters will be A Common Reference
guided based on the data collection desires, ATC instructions, and Develop a grid of the mission area that
equipment choices. can be used for flight planning and
To ensure safety is paramount and airports should determine what reference by any parties involved with
the return-to-home procedure will be for any stage of the operation. the operation.
This procedure shouldn’t interfere with any airport property or
personnel that is not part of the UAS operation and should never inter-
fere with any manned operations. Return-to-home and deconfliction
procedures are discussed in more detail later.
4.2.1.1 Reference Map

Develop a visualization of the mission area that would allow associated parties to quickly
reference and understand the operation. One recommendation is a grid with estimated mission
location and parameters. This document should help with understanding the location of
personnel and equipment of the operation and effectively convey this information. This will
prove helpful when allocating resources, identifying bases of operation, and communicating
with law enforcement or emergency personnel. This map does not have to be 100% precise
when describing mission parameters and location. Rather, its greatest utility is its easy inter-
pretation and ability to quickly describe the scope of the operation. Figure 7 is an example of
a reference map.
4.2.2 Data Collection

For the majority of UAS uses, the goal of the operation is to collect data. It is important
for the airport to determine what data they want and for what purpose. For example, UAS use
Identify flight logistics, including: number of flights, number of UAS, distance above
ground level (AGL), flight paths, average mission time, and ensure flights will yield
adequate image overlap for data processing.
Create a Flight Plan and map with the flight logistics clearly labelled.
Identify any impacts to normal airport operations, such as runway or taxiway closures,
delays, etc.
Establish communication protocol.
Non-towered airports may require continuous reporting and monitoring of
common frequency while towered airports may dictate operation schedule
Figure 6. Overview of important components of flight planning.

Figure 7. Example of a reference grid.
for pavement inspection should yield data that an airport can use to support their pavement
condition determination (FAA, 2014). Airport operators need to determine:
• Data Types
– What is expected from this UAS use? Is it high-resolution images? Video? Orthomosaic?
Point Cloud? 3D models?
• Resolution
– What resolutions are sufficient for data collected? 1.3 cm/pixel ground resolution for
pavement inspection? Facial recognition? Survey-grade orthomosaic for construction?
• Storage
– How will this data be stored? Will it be housed on the platform for the duration of the
mission? Will users transfer to an external storage as the mission proceeds? Will a cloud
infrastructure need to be set up to allow for multiple users to access simultaneously?
For most pavement inspection or facility inspection uses, such as that in Figure 8, the opera-
tors will have a chance to collect and store the data in between different UAS flights. This is
because the UAS platform will likely need a battery swap to continue. This time can be used
to transfer the data to storage. However, on more prolonged missions, such as those flown by
fixed-wing platforms, there is the risk of running out of storage on the on-board storage unit
if multiple missions are flown without any data transfer. Mission types will largely dictate the
storage requirements for the operators. Simple RGB surveys would need only several gigabytes
of external storage whereas collection of high-resolution images or video would require tera-
bytes or more of external storage. Some data outputs require collation of several images, such as
the mosaic in Figure 9, that require more storage than a single image. Having a rough estimate
of the file size for certain types of data can help with determining any potential storage issues.
It is also essential to factor in outside conditions that might influence the quality of the data
collected. Sunlight, vegetation, altitude, and the UAS platform all impact the ability to collect

Figure 8. Example of data output of runway

imagery from a high-resolution camera.
data. For RGB imagery or video data collection, the amount of sunlight available affects whether
the data collected is useful for analysis purposes. When planning mission start times in the
winter months or at extreme latitudes, sunlight is an important constraint to consider. Vegetation
can also block RGB and thermal data collection. During instances where vegetation is a persistent
visual obstacle, LiDAR could potentially be a good alternative. However, there may be cost and
battery/weight constraints that may prevent the adoption of LiDAR.
4.2.3 Communications Protocol

The communication protocol for UAS operations is an important consideration to plan
for all missions. At towered airports, a preliminary protocol should be developed already
Figure 9. Example output of thermal imagery mosaic.

Example Communication Equipment/Protocol

Towered: Two-way handheld radios. Communicate
the start of any mission and request clearance from
tower before beginning. Inform the tower when
complete and adhere to any additional instructions.
Non-towered: Two-way handheld and more
powerful radios capable of broadcasting outwards
over 10 miles. Inform traffic of any intentions at the
start of a mission. Report UAS position on airport
periodically.
Figure 10. Best practices for airport

communications at a towered versus
non-towered airport.
from previous coordination activities with the tower. If operating at a non-towered airport,
a communication protocol should be developed based around the self-announce pro-
cedures described in the Aeronautical Information Manual (FAA, 2017b). An example of
some differences when approaching a towered versus non-towered airport is included in
Figure 10. This protocol should also be captured in a document that can be referenced by
individuals throughout the operation. An example of how to capture this information is included
in Figure 11.
Equipment needs must also be identified. The most common equipment needs include a
handheld radio, cell phone numbers, spare batteries, and long range vehicle-mounted radios.
This is a partial list of communications equipment, which should be amended based upon
the airport’s existing communications practices.
4.3 Executing the Operation

This section provides guidance and best practices to help during the operation. Proper
coordination and planning will help the operation execute safely and more efficiently. However,
there are a few key steps that should be outlined here.
Figure 11. Sample communications protocol.

4.3.1 Pre-flight
4.3.1.1 Safety Briefing
Before the first flight of the day a pre-flight safety briefing should be conducted. This briefing
should be done with any personnel that are affiliated or taking part in the UAS operation for
that day present. Its purpose is to ensure that safety is at the forefront of the operation and
respect for manned traffic and normal airport operations is upheld. Some items that should
always be included in the briefing are:
• This safety briefing should cover the day’s operation in high-level detail such that the
audience understands where the UAS will be at any point in the day. The reference map
generated from flight planning is helpful.
• It should outline the areas where the UAS operators are allowed to access and areas where
UAS operators are not allowed to access.
• It should reiterate appropriate behavior for any vehicles on the airport affiliated with the
UAS operation.
• It should cover and confirm the communication protocol and any important frequencies
or POCs.
• It should cover the location of any emergency or first aid essentials or contact information for
obtaining these essentials.
• It should include a weather briefing and understanding of limitations.
4.3.1.2 Equipment Check

Before the operations, UAS operators should check all equipment to ensure proper function.
This will help reduce the risk of any equipment failures during the operation and reduce the
risk of any interference to normal operations. Like any manned operations a checklist can
be employed to assist in the thorough and complete check of all equipment. An example of
the pre-flight checks to be performed is provided in Figure 12.
Figure 12. Example of pre-flight considerations and equipment checks.

4.3.2 Deconfliction Procedure and Return to Home

UAS RPICs must remain cognizant of the Return to Home (RTH) procedure throughout
the day. Most UAS platforms have a flexible RTH procedure which can be programmed and
changed to fit the dynamic environment of an airport. It is prudent that the RTH proce-
dure does not interfere with any approach or departure corridors or any other trajectories of
manned operations. Geo-fencing can also be used to limit the ability of the UAS to fly near
or over any sensitive area or restricted areas. The RPIC should be able to quickly communicate
to and alert ATC in the event of a lost-link and initiation of RTH procedure. RTH procedures
include the following considerations:
• Avoiding approach and departure corridors of manned operations,
• Geo-fencing to avoid trespassing or proximity to restricted or sensitive areas,
• The ability of the RPIC to maintain visual contact with the UAS, and
• A protocol to communicate with ATC in the event of an RTH procedure.
It is also the responsibility of the UAS RPIC to remain vigilant of any manned traffic in their
vicinity. If operating at a non-towered airport they would have to rely on their own senses
and the announcements of the local traffic to understand where activity is occurring on
or around the airfield. The UAS crew must interpret intentions of the traffic and determine
the safest location to land or most appropriate procedure to deconflict. This adds a layer of
complexity to the operation as the crew must constantly be scanning the airspace and the radio
to ensure they have enough warning to safely react to any aircraft in the area.
Even at a towered airport it may prove difficult to track all aircraft and operations in the area.
In such instances the UAS crew must rely on the tower and the crew’s ability to detect aircraft
in the vicinity through sight and sound. The crews should comply with all ATC commands and
state all of their intentions as understood by the communication protocol.

CHAPTER 5
UAS Demonstration Case Studies
5.1 Front Range Airport

This section will cover the UAS field demonstration that was conducted by the Booz Allen
team at Front Range Airport (FTG). This section will describe the demonstration details and
how it was conducted using the approach provided in Chapter 4. Unique considerations and
scenarios to this field demonstration will be called out to help highlight the unique decision-
making and logistics that go into conducting UAS operations at a controlled airfield.
Front Range Airport is a towered Class D airport, located inside the Class B airspace of
Denver International Airport (DEN). FTG is a high-altitude airfield located in Watkins,
Colorado, at a field elevation of 5,485 ft. It has two runways, Runway 8-26 and Runway 17-35,
both measuring 8,000 ft x 100 ft. Both runways are mainly used for GA operations with occa-
sional military use throughout the year. On August 17, 2018, the Colorado Air and Space Port
announced that the FAA approved its site operator license at FTG.
5.1.1 Pre-Planning Coordination

Coordination for the UAS field demonstration at FTG began with discussing the interest,
potential use cases, preliminary flight plans, communications and operational logistics with
the Colorado DOT Division of Aeronautics, Adams County, FTG airport management and
the FTG control tower manager. Colorado DOT’s Aeronautics Division oversees 73 public
use airports and 1 sea-plane based airport in the state. FTG is a strong proponent for UAS
integration at airports and with the future of Space Port development onsite was very intrigued
about the possibilities and capabilities UAS would bring to the facility. This led to encouraging
discussion and succinct coordination and the eventual selection of FTG as the airport for
the first field demonstration with a focus on Pavement Management applications. FTG was
chosen because of its location, type of air traffic, simplicity, and eagerness to employ UAS
solutions. FTG also offered the Booz Allen team an initial opportunity to test UAS operation
in a controlled environment. This demonstration allowed a great opportunity to demonstrate,
observe, and learn from UAS operations in a controlled towered environment prior to
LAANC (Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability) being enabled for the
Western South Region 3 which included FTG.
5.1.1.1 Stakeholder and Community Engagement

The FTG airport manager, tower manager, and field manager were onboard and offered
approval of this operation. The subsequent discussions determined that collecting a current
condition of the horizontal facilities (runways, taxiways, aprons, parking, public roads, access
roads) was the most beneficial and desirable for the airport. Ultimately, a plan to fly both
airside and landside facilities was decided upon, given that the team had the permissions and
25

access to the site. It was decided that UAS flight operations would take place over a two-day
period and NOTAMs were filed by FTG stating that runway closures were in effect for UAS
operations on the days of the demonstration. On Day 1, Runway 8-26 was closed and on
Day 2 Runway 17-35 was closed in order to operate on those runways without conflict with
other aircraft. During the closure of Runway 17-35 on Day 2, a perimeter scan of the control
tower was conducted. Figure 13 illustrates the flight plan and altitudes necessary to capture
an accurate 3D representation of the tower. This allowed FTG to remain open during the
demonstration with little impact on incoming and outgoing flight operations.
Airport personnel, facility personnel, and airport tenants were engaged to understand typical
operations on the runway, communications, busiest hours, and logistics of conducting a UAS
operation. Important information on when to fly, where to stage the flight crew, how best
to mobilize equipment, and develop the communication protocol came from these talks.
5.1.1.2 FAA Engagement

FAA engagement was conducted through the ATC tower personnel and the airport manage-
ment. The airport manager communicated the desire, purpose, and plan for this demonstration
Figure 13. Flight plan necessary for data capture of FTG tower.

UAS Demonstration Case Studies 27
to the FAA. Coordination between the FAA, ATC tower, and airport manager ensured the
operation was understood by the regulatory and participating parties.
5.1.1.3 Air Traffic Control Engagement

Efforts were focused on developing communication protocols similar to existing airplane
pilot-to-tower communications. These protocols were discussed with the airport manager
and tower manager and agreed upon prior to the demonstration. The team used NAV/COM
handheld aviation radios for all flight operations during the demonstration.
5.1.1.4 Waiver and Authorization Process

This operation would occur in Class D airspace, so a standard Part 107.41 authorization was
pursued. The details of this waiver were written to reflect the logistics and purpose understood
and agreed upon from coordination with the FAA and ATC tower personnel.
5.1.2 Flight Planning

Flight planning began once the scope of the use cases was solidified through pre-planning
coordination. The Booz Allen team worked with UAS operators at Kimley-Horn to determine
the best platforms to accomplish the mission.
5.1.2.1 Establish Mission Parameters

The first step was developing the mission parameters and determining the extent of the
mission area. A resolution of at least 1.3 cm/pixel from the high-resolution cameras for
the runway inspection was determined. This resolution suggested an altitude of 60 m AGL
for the missions to provide the adequate overlap and efficient mission timing. It was also
determined that a sample area focused on the A6 taxiway would be flown at 15 m. These
accuracy levels were needed to assist in the development of feature extraction tools and
distress detection technology.
A flight plan map was generated to illustrate flight parameters, altitudes of each flight, flight
paths, direction of flight, and the number assigned to each flight/mission to facilitate clear
communications with the tower. The flight plan map is included in Figure 14.
Figure 14. Reference grid from FTG demo.

5.1.2.2 Data Collection

Data collection needs were determined by the airport’s desire to obtain high-resolution
imagery that could be used to determine pavement conditions. Thus, the Sony R10C was
chosen as the sensor for this demonstration. For the runway inspection, the airport wanted
data products in the form of orthomosaics, 3D point clouds, contours, digital terrain models, and
3D models. These deliverables were all stored and delivered in the cloud and were accessed using
3DR Site Scan manager.
5.1.2.3 Communication Protocol

The communication protocol for this demonstration was based off the standard procedures
for manned aircraft at a towered airport. These follow the self-announcement guidelines
found in the Aeronautical Information Manual (FAA, 2017b). The flight team iterated this
communication protocol with the airport manager, the Fixed Base Operator (FBO), and
the tower manager. The flight team would make announcements to the control tower on the
Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF) 120.2 during the following stages of the missions:
• Mission start,
• If any new traffic entered the vicinity,
• Mission end, and
• Anytime flight crew or an operation vehicle crossed the runway.
Predictive weather was monitored 5 days prior to the operation using a combination of
prognostic charts, METAR, and TFR information provided by NOAA’s Aviation Weather site
(www.aviationweather.gov). Weather was monitored on the ATIS frequency 119.025 during
the days of the operation.
5.1.3 Executing the Operation

5.1.3.1 Pre-flight
A thorough pre-flight was conducted by the UAS flight team. A safety briefing was pre-
sented to the airport personnel, airport manager, UAS flight team, and FBO. Participants
were briefed on:
• Flight plan,
• Deconfliction of manned traffic,
• Behavior of vehicles when operating on the airport,
• Communication protocol and important frequencies and phone numbers, and
• Emergency and first aid.
The flight team then performed an equipment check on the day’s equipment to ensure proper
function and all necessary equipment was available and accounted for.
5.1.3.2 Deconfliction Procedure and Return to Home

The flight team developed and executed conservative deconfliction and return to home
procedures.
Class D airspace is one of the most common parts of the airspace system that requires
specific radio communications. Although it is possible to operate without a radio with the prior
consent of the tower controller, the general rule is that two-way communications must be
established prior to operation in a Class D environment. Talking to a controller is not enough
to “establish” communications.
Even though FTG is a controlled environment, unpredictable operation can occur. The
flight team relied on their visual observer’s ability to detect aircraft through sight and sound

in addition to any radio calls. If an aircraft announced itself to be in the flight pattern,
the UAS flight team would initiate a deconfliction procedure that would promptly land the
UAS off the runway and out of any potential obstruction to the manned traffic. In the case
of FTG, taxiway A is a shared access taxiway for both Runway 8-26 and Runway 17-35.
If an aircraft was directed to use taxiway A during operations, the UAS flight team would
initiate a deconfliction procedure that would promptly land the UAS away from taxiway A
to avoid any conflicts. This was in effect on both days of the operation due to the nature of
the ground traffic patterns.
5.1.4 Conclusions and Lessons Learned

The field demonstration at FTG proved to be an invaluable experience to help shape how
UAS operations can be conducted at towered airports. Communication proved paramount.
The tower treated the UAS flight team like any other traffic in the airspace.
While conducting flight operations at the south end of Runway 17-35, the flight team realized
that communications using the handheld radios were not being heard by the tower. This was
due to the operational range of the radios and what they called a ‘dead zone’ on the airport prop-
erty. This was resolved using cell phone communication with the tower, which demonstrated
the importance of redundant and robust communications.
In using the standard procedures for manned traffic at the towered airport, the flight team
found that air traffic in the area was very accommodating to the operation and were willing to
yield or make adjustments as necessary. This demonstration is a positive precedent for conducting
UAS operations in a controlled airspace.
5.2 Johnston Regional Airport

team at Johnston Regional Airport (JNX). This section will describe the demonstration details
and how it was conducted using the approach provided in Chapter 4. Unique considerations and
scenarios to this field demonstration will be called out to help highlight the nuanced decision-
making and factors that go into conducting UAS operations at an airfield.
Johnston Regional Airport is a non-towered Class G airport. It has a single 5,500 ft x 100 ft
runway which sees primarily general aviation aircraft. The demonstration at JNX took place
over 3 days.

Coordination for the UAS field demonstration at JNX began with discussing the interest
and potential use cases with the North Carolina DOT. North Carolina DOT’s aviation divi-
sion oversees over 70 public airports in the state, is a strong proponent for UAS integration
at airports, and was chosen by the FAA as a participant in the UAS Integration Pilot Program
(UAS IPP) (North Carolina Airports, 2018). This led to encouraging discussion and succinct
coordination and the eventual selection of JNX as the airport for field demonstration.
JNX was chosen because of its modern facilities, simplicity, and eagerness to employ UAS
solutions. JNX also offered the Booz Allen team its first opportunity to test UAS operations in
a non-towered environment. Non-towered, Class G airports comprise most public airports in
the National Airspace System (NAS) and therefore this demonstration provided a great oppor-
tunity to demonstrate, observe, and learn from UAS operations in a ubiquitous environment
(Air Safety Institute, 2017).


The next step in coordination was to begin discussions with the airport manager. The airport
manager was onboard and offered approval of this operation. The subsequent discussions
determined which use cases were most beneficial and desirable for the airport. Ultimately,
a pavement inspection of the runway and wildlife management use case were chosen. It was
decided that the runway would remain open during the pavement inspection and wildlife
management use cases.
With the understanding of the use cases in place, restricted areas were established to ensure
the UAS operations did not intrude on the privacy of the tenants in that area. The Booz Allen
team also signed an agreement regarding the use and release of any data collected. This was
done to meet the privacy concerns of the airport and the airport’s responsibility to protect the
identity of its tenants.
Airport personnel, facility personnel, and airport tenants were engaged to understand
typical operations on the runway, communications, busiest hours, and logistics of conducting
a UAS operation. Important information on when to fly, where to stage the flight crew, how
best to mobilize equipment, and how to develop the communication protocol came from
these talks.

This initial coordination process was simple due to the choice of a Class G airspace. It isn’t
necessary to submit an authorization for UAS use in a uncontrolled airspace. This meant FAA
engagement was minimal. In the case of an uncontrolled airport the airport manager has
final say on UAS operations. This makes it even more prudent that attention is paid to safe
flight-planning.

Without a tower there was no need for air traffic control engagement. Rather, efforts
were focused on developing a communication protocol that was agreed on by the airport
manager.

As mentioned, there was no need to pursue waiver or authorization for the demonstration.
This was an uncontrolled airport located in Class G airspace, so it was not subject to the
same authorization and waiver process as Classes B, C, D, or E airports. The airport manager
was in full approval of these operations and as such the demonstration was conducted
legally.

Flight planning began once the scope of the use cases was solidified through preplanning
coordination. The Booz Allen team worked with UAS operators at PrecisionHawk to deter-
mine the best platforms to accomplish the mission.

The first step was developing the mission parameters and determining the extent of the
mission area. A resolution of at least 1.3 cm/pixel from the high-resolution cameras for
the runway inspection was determined. This resolution suggested an altitude of 60 m AGL for
the missions to provide the adequate overlap and efficient mission timing.

A reference map was generated to help with the remaining stages of the flight planning.
The reference map from this demonstration is included in Figure 15. This map was used to
determine what areas were best for the flight team to set up and stage during each step of the
pavement inspection and wildlife management use case.

Data collection needs were determined by the airport’s desire to obtain high-resolution imagery
that could be used to determine pavement condition and the ability to detect warm-body
wildlife in the tree lines along the airport’s perimeter. Thus, a high-resolution camera and
a thermal camera were chosen as the two sensors for this demonstration. For the runway
inspection, the airport wanted data products in the form of orthomosaics and 3D models.
For the wildlife management use case a proof of concept of the platform’s ability to detect and
track wildlife in the vicinity was desired.

for manned aircraft at a non-towered airport. These follow the self-announcement guidelines
communication protocol with the airport manager and the FBO. The flight team would make
announcements on the CTAF during the following stages of the missions:
• Mission start,
In addition, weather was monitored on the ATIS frequency throughout the operation.
Figure 15. Reference grid from JNX demo.


5.2.3.1 Pre-flight
A thorough pre-flight was conducted by the UAS flight team. A safety briefing was presented to
the airport personnel, airport manager, UAS flight team, and FBO. Participants were briefed on:
• Flight plan,

The flight team developed and executed conservative deconfliction and return to home
procedures. Unlike towered airports, pilots at non-towered airports do not need any per-
mission prior to landing or taking off. They are responsible for announcing their own inten-
tions at any time. This can lead to a much less predictable environment around the airport as
pilots may fail to report their position or report at irregular times.
To combat the unpredictable operations of the airport the flight team relied on their ability
to detect aircraft through sight and sound in addition to any radio calls. If an aircraft
announced itself to be in the flight pattern, the UAS flight team would initiate a deconfliction
procedure that would promptly land the UAS off the runway and out of any potential obstruc-
tion to the manned traffic.

The field demonstration at JNX proved to be an invaluable experience to help shape how
UAS operations can be conducted at non-towered airports. The wildlife management test
was successful, proving that heat signatures in the nearby forest could be detected at varying
altitudes and distances relative to the runway. Communication proved paramount. Without
air traffic control to keep aircraft separated the UAS flight team had to work together with
local manned traffic to deconflict, reduce risk, and maintain a safe airspace. Several occasions
led to manned traffic communicating directly to the UAS flight team to help assist them to
accomplish their mission and provide them ample time to land their UAS and ensure both
parties were safe.
5.3 Sebring Regional Airport

team at Sebring Regional Airport (SEF). This section will describe the demonstration details
and how it was conducted using the approach provided in Chapter 4. Unique considerations
and scenarios to this field demonstration will be called out to help highlight the nuanced
decision-making and factors that go into conducting UAS operations at an airfield.
Sebring Regional Airport is a non-towered Class G airport. However, for special events
it does operate a tower to dictate operations. For this UAS operation, it operated as non-
towered. It has two runways. Runway 1-19 is 5234 ft x 100 ft and Runway 14-32 is 4990 ft x
100 ft. SEF sees primarily general aviation traffic with occasional commercial and military.
The demonstration at SEF took place over two days.


Coordination for the UAS field demonstration at SEF began with discussing the interest
and potential use cases with SEF’s airport manager. Sebring Regional Airport had already been
identified as a potential location for a UAS demonstration by a member of the research team.
Sebring Regional Airport hosts drone racing and UAS conventions so its willingness and incli-
nation towards UAS was already apparent. While the research project had identified many
airports as partners, SEF was chosen due to its unique facilities, expected use cases, and
eagerness to employ UAS solutions. SEF was originally built as a training base for the U.S.
Army Air Corps in 1940 and it was operated as a public airfield since 1946. The airfield has
remnants of WW2-era infrastructure and offered a prime opportunity to use UAS to assist with
facility and pavement inspection. SEF also offered the Booz Allen team its first opportunity
to test multiple UAS operations in the same airspace.

Initial discussions with the airport manager identified which use cases were most beneficial
and desirable for the airport. As mentioned previously the airport is managing its WW2-era
infrastructure and is looking for ways to understand and inventory the condition of its
facilities. To best understand which areas were most important, the Booz Allen team engaged
with the facilities manager. These discussions helped pinpoint what locations on the airfield
they were having the most trouble understanding and which of the locations were of most
importance for them to replace or address. Ultimately, a pavement inspection of Runway 14-31,
inspection of a drainage canal along the airport property, hangar inspection, and a security/
emergency response use case were chosen. It was decided that the runway would remain open
during all operations.
A unique aspect of SEF is the racetrack that is adjoined to the airfield. Renowned inter
nationally for its endurance races, the racetrack is a major tenant at the airport. Restricted
areas were established to ensure the UAS operations did not intrude on the privacy of the race-
track and its personnel. The Booz Allen team also signed an agreement regarding the use and
release of any data collected. This was done to meet the privacy concerns of the airport and
the airport’s responsibility to protect the identity of its tenants.
Airport personnel, facility personnel, and airport tenants were engaged to understand typical
operations on the runway, communications, busiest hours, and logistics of conducting a
UAS operation. Important information on when to fly, where to stage the flight crew, how best
to mobilize equipment, and how to develop the communication protocol came from these
talks. As well, a staging area was determined and access to on-field facility was allowed for
the flight teams to store their equipment.

This initial coordination process was simple due to the choice of a Class G airspace. It wasn’t
necessary to submit an airspace authorization because the airspace was not controlled air-
space. This meant FAA engagement was minimal. In the case of an uncontrolled airport, the
airport manager has the authority to grant or deny UAS operations at the airport within
the nondiscrimination limits of Grant Assurance 22a. This makes it even more prudent that
attention is paid to safe flight-planning.

Without a tower there was no need for air traffic control engagement. Rather, efforts were
focused on developing a communication protocol that was agreed on by the airport manager.
Weather was monitored on the ATIS frequency throughout the operation as well.


As mentioned, there was no need to pursue an airspace waiver or an airspace authorization
for the demonstration. This was an uncontrolled airport, so it was not subject to the same
authorization and waiver process as Classes B, C, D, or E airports. The airport manager was
in full approval of these operations and as such the demonstration was conducted legally.
The operation was conducted at night as part of the security/emergency response use case. In
this case, the UAS operator had previously obtained their night waiver which allowed them to
operate at night in Class G airspace (FAA, 2018a).

Flight planning began once the scope of the use cases was solidified through the pre-planning
coordination. The Booz Allen team worked with UAS operators at PrecisionHawk, Sensurion,
and Florida Institute of Technology to determine the best platforms and coordination to
accomplish the missions. Given that multiple UAS would be flying at a time, the flight planning
stage was critical. Extra care was taken to coordinate between the pilots and make sure each
understood where they would be and where other pilots would be flying UAS. Meetings were
held with any operators that would be flying at the same time. These meetings discussed the
mission parameters and the plan to communicate with each other as well as the local traffic.

The first day of operations focused on the runway and drainage canal inspections. A LiDAR
platform was chosen for this day of operations. Mission parameters were then established
based on the identified data needs and compliance with local traffic and airport requests.
The UAS flight team would fly 15-minute missions over Runway 14-31 while no traffic was
in the pattern. These missions were performed at 60 m AGL. Once these missions were
complete the flight team mobilized to the north side of the airport where the drainage canal
was located.
The drainage canal runs along the north perimeter of the airport away from approach and
departure ends of the runways as highlighted in Figure 16. This allowed the flight team more
lenience when performing their missions. Mission times were based off the battery limitations.
These missions were flown uninterrupted by local traffic as they were performed away
from the pattern.
The team performed a 30-minute emergency response demonstration using Sensurion’s
Sentinel tethered drone platform as seen in Figure 17. This mission was performed after dusk
Figure 16. Drainage canal mission area at SEF.

Figure 17. Sentinel drone

demonstration.
and took place on a single point on the airport apron at altitude of 10 m, 20 m, and 50 m.
The purpose was to demonstrate the ability of a tethered platform to provide a mobile source of
illumination to help aid emergency crews or aid in security.
On the second day of operations, the team flew missions to inspect a hangar and performed
an inspection of the midfield grass to help the airport identify and inventory the sinkholes
plaguing the airport. These missions were flown with the input of the field maintenance
personnel at the airport. Mission parameters were determined based on their input and priorities.
Four mission areas were established, and each was flown as a single mission. These mission
areas are highlighted in Figure 18. The hangar inspection and midfield inspection missions
were flown concurrently. This allowed the team the opportunity to demonstrate successful
coordination of multiple UAS operators at once.
Figure 18. Midfield inspection areas.


Data collection needs were determined by the airport’s desire to obtain detailed 3D map-
ping of the airport’s infrastructure. LiDAR was chosen by the operators and research team to
demonstrate its capabilities and utility for airports. Flights were flown at 60 m to obtain the
desired resolution while still offering efficient mission times and versatility. Data collection
yielded .las files that can be used to create a point cloud, elevation map, or 3D map of the
collection area.

for manned aircraft at a non-towered airport. These follow the self-announcement guidelines
communication protocol with the airport manager and the FBO. The flight team would make
announcements on the CTAF during the follow stages of the missions:
• Mission start,
In addition, weather was monitored on the ATIS frequency throughout the operation.
A unique aspect of the SEF demonstration was the need to develop a protocol that would
allow the multiple operators to effectively communicate. To do this, the flight team would
coordinate with each other on a separate frequency or by cellphone during the above stages of
each mission.

5.3.3.1 Pre-flight
A thorough pre-flight was conducted by the UAS flight team. A safety briefing was pre-
sented to the airport personnel, airport manager, UAS flight team, and FBO. Participants
were briefed on:
• Flight plan,

Given the similar manned traffic operations to JNX the deconfliction and return to home
procedures for SEF were developed with the previous demonstration’s success in mind.
The flight team developed and executed conservative deconfliction and return to home proce-
dures. Unlike towered airports, pilots at non-towered airports do not need any permission
prior to landing or taking off, and are responsible for announcing their own intentions at any
time. This can lead to a much less predictable environment around the airport as pilots may
fail to report their position or report at irregular times.
To combat the unpredictable operations of the airport, the flight team relied on their ability
to detect aircraft through sight and sound in addition to any radio calls. If an aircraft announced

itself to be in the flight pattern, the UAS flight team would initiate a deconfliction procedure
that would promptly land the UAS off the runway and out of any potential obstruction to the
manned traffic.

The field demonstration at SEF offered experience to better understand how to effectively
coordinate with UAS operators and airport personnel to determine the most effective and effi-
cient uses of UAS for the airport. The objectives of these operations—canal inspection, runway
inspection, sinkhole survey, and lighting systems—exemplify the diversity of potential uses for
UAS at airports. This experience also provided new knowledge by establishing communica-
tions and a safe environment for multiple concurrent UAS missions. The consecutive success
of multiple types of missions without conflict with manned aircraft or other unexpected events
supports the planning process that was used.

References
Air Safety Institute. (2017, June). Safety Advisor: Operations & Proficiency No.3. Retrieved from https://www.
faasafety.gov/files/notices/2017/Jun/Non-Tower_Airport_Comms.pdf.
Barr, L., Newman, R., Ancel, E., Belcastro, C., Foster, J., and Klyde, D. (2017). Preliminary Risk Assessment for
Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems. AIAA Aviation Forum, Denver, Colorado.
County of Ventura. (2019). Drone User Information. Retrieved from https://www.ventura.org/drone-user-
information/.
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. (2014). Safety Management System Manual. Daytona Beach, Florida.
FAA. (2014, October 10). AC 150-5380-6C: Guidelines and Procedures for Maintenance of Airport Pavements.
Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/150-5380-6C.pdf.
FAA. (2017b). Aeronautical Information Manual. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/
media/aim.pdf.
FAA. (2018a). Part 107 Operational Waiver Application Instructions. Washington, D.C.
FAA. (2016). Report to Congress National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). Washington, D.C.
FAA. (2018b). Request a Part 107 Waiver or Operation in Controlled Airspace. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/
uas/request_waiver/.
FAA. (2017a). UAS Facility Maps. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/uas/request_waiver/uas_facility_maps/.
FAA. (2018c). UAS—Programs, Partnerships, and Opportunities. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/uas/
programs_partnerships/data_exchange/.
FLIR Systems AB. (2011). FLIR. Retrieved from https://www.flirmedia.com/MMC/THG/Brochures/T820264/
T820264_EN.pdf.
Golden Triangle Regional Airport. (2019, January 15). Drone Seminar. Retrieved from https://www.gtra.com/
uas-documents/.
Matthews, S., Frisbie, F. L., and Cistone, J. H. (2017). Opportunities and Challenges for Use of UAS at Air-
ports. Washington Progress Group LLC. Retrieved from https://www.atca.org/Uploads/symposium/
2017/Tech%20Papers/Opportunities%20and%20Challenges%20for%20use%20of%20UAS%20at%20
airports.pdf.
NASEM. (2018). Assessing the Risks of Integrating Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) into the National Airspace
System. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
North Carolina Airports. (2018, July 1). Retrieved from https://www.ncdot.gov/divisions/aviation/Pages/
nc-airports.aspx.
PrecisionHawk. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.precisionhawk.com/sensors/advanced-sensors-and-data-
collection/.
Price, J., and Forrest, J. (2016). Practical Airport Operations, Safety, and Emergency Management. Elsevier, Boston,
Massachusetts.
Robertson, S. (2018, March 19). WFAA8. Retrieved from https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/first-in-the-
nation-drones-to-take-flight-at-dfw-airport/287-529986450.
38

APPENDIX A
UAS Use Case Matrix
A-1

A-2 Airports and Unmanned Aircraft Systems

APPENDIX B
Sample UAS SMS Plan
See Toolkit 1b for a sample UAS plan implemented at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical Univer-
sity. The toolkit is available in ACRP Web-Only Document 42: Toolkits and Resource Library for
Airports and Unmanned Aircraft Systems, which can be found on the TRB website by searching
for “ACRP Research Report 212.”
B-1


Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications:

A4A Airlines for America
AAAE American Association of Airport Executives
AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America
ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
APTA American Public Transportation Association
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATA American Trucking Associations
CTAA Community Transportation Association of America
CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOE Department of Energy
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015)
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012)
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials
NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (2005)
TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program
TDC Transit Development Corporation
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998)
TRB Transportation Research Board
TSA Transportation Security Administration
U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED
Washington, DC 20001
500 Fifth Street, NW
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
NON-PROFIT ORG.
ISBN 978-0-309-48149-6
COLUMBIA, MD
PERMIT NO. 88
U.S. POSTAGE
90000
PAID
9 780309 481496

The National Academies Press

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The National Academies Press

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/25607 SHARE

Airports and Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Volume 3: Potential

50 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

FIND RELATED TITLES

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2020. Airports and

– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM

ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 212

Volume 3: Potential Use of UAS

Booz Allen Hamilton

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Kimley-Horn and Associates

Toltz, King, Duvall, Anderson, and Associates

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.

Astrid Aviation and Aerospace

Research sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 212, VOLUME 3

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS

CRP STAFF FOR ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 212, VOLUME 3

ACRP PROJECT 03-42 PANEL

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

3 Chapter 2 UAS Uses at Airports

9 Chapter 3 Integrating UAS Related Risk into an SMS Plan

15 Chapter 4 Approach to Conducting UAS Operations

25 Chapter 5 UAS Demonstration Case Studies

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

1.2 Overview of Potential Uses of UAS

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

2 Airports and Unmanned Aircraft Systems

1.3 Guidebook Audience and Format

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

UAS Uses at Airports

2.1 Airport Uses

2.2 UAS Types

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

4 Airports and Unmanned Aircraft Systems

Table 1. UAS use, purpose, outcomes/improvements,

UAS Use Purpose Outcomes/Improvements Timeline

Facility Inspection Inspecting of hangars, terminal Dependent on the facility Short

Perimeter Use of UAS to monitor and Improved surveillance of airport Short

Emergency Use of UAS to supplement on- New solution to responding to Medium

2.3.1 RGB/High-Resolution Video/Photography

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

UAS Uses at Airports 5

2.3.3 Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR)

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

6 Airports and Unmanned Aircraft Systems

2.4 Summary of UAS Platforms and Sensors

2.5 Impacts of UAS Use at Airports

Table 2. List of UAS platforms, sensors, uses, pros, and cons.

Platform Off-the-Shelf Sensors Potential Pros Cons

Rotorcraft DJI Mavic RGB/High- Pavement Most Relatively

Fixed-Wing AeroVironment RGB/High- Pavement Relatively Less

Tethered Elistair Orion Thermal Surveillance Indefinite Small spatial

15 Chapter 4 Approach to Conducting UAS Operations

1.2 Overview of Potential Uses of UAS

3.2 Understanding and Assessing Risk