The National Academies Press

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/25599 SHARE

   
Airports and Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Volume 1: Managing

and Engaging Stakeholders on UAS in the Vicinity of
Airports (2020)
DETAILS
96 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

ISBN 978-0-309-49877-7 | DOI 10.17226/25599
CONTRIBUTORS
GET THIS BOOK Booz Allen Hamilton; 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 1: Managing and Engaging Stakeholders on UAS
in the Vicinity of Airports. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/25599.

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 1: Managing and Engaging Stakeholders on UAS in the Vicinity of Airports
AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 212

Airports and Unmanned
Aircraft Systems
Volume 1: Managing and

Engaging Stakeholders on UAS
in the Vicinity of Airports
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 1
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 978-0-309-48147-2
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 1

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 Airport Management of UAS Operations
2 1.3 Guidebook Audience and Format
2 1.4 How to Use This Guidebook
3 Chapter 2 Understanding the Requirements to Manage

UAS Operations
3 2.1 Development of Concept of Operations
7 2.2 Authorization, Approval, and Notification
19 2.3 Privacy and Data Considerations
20 2.4 Hyperlocal Restrictions and Federal Preemption
22 Chapter 3 Safety and Emergency Management Best Practices

22 3.1 Safety Management Systems
25 3.2 UAS Contingency Management
29 3.3 Guidance for Emergency Plans for UAS Operations at Airports
34 Chapter 4 Visual Risk Assessment Map and Factors

34 4.1 Tools and Methods for Map Development
36 4.2 Risk Factors
40 4.3 Map Elements and Risk Management
45 Chapter 5 Engagement and Communication Tools

45 5.1 Websites
46 5.2 Social Media
47 5.3 In-Person Information Sessions
48 5.4 Free Education/Training
49 5.5 Paid Education/Training
50 5.6 Conferences and Symposiums
50 5.7 Documentation
52 5.8 Community Partnerships/Affiliations
56 Chapter 6 Case Studies

56 6.1 Example Perspectives
56 6.2 Case Analysis Scenarios
68 Chapter 7 Other Resources

68 7.1 UAS Information Resources
71 7.2 Communication Resources
72 7.3 Further Tools: Examples and Details
81 References
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) will impact the national airspace
system (NAS) and its existing stakeholders. The introduction of UAS has presented a wide range
of new safety, economic, operational, regulatory, community, environmental, and infrastruc-
ture challenges to airports. These risks are further complicated by the dynamic and shifting
nature of UAS technologies. It is critically important that airports have the resources needed to
avoid adverse impacts and maximize benefits as early as possible.
1.2 Overview of Airport Management of UAS Operations

This document provides guidance for airport operators and managers to interact with UAS
operations in the vicinity of airports. The demand for commercial UAS may increase signifi-
cantly once advanced UAS operations—including beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) opera-
tions, operations over people, and operations of multiple UAS by one pilot—are allowed through
broader regulatory frameworks.1 Understanding the nature of UAS operations, platforms, and
applications is a topic of interest at most, if not all, airports.
The rapidly evolving regulatory framework for integration of small UAS (sUAS—UAS
weighing less than 55 lbs) activities has resulted in the need for guidance to inform airport opera-
tors about managing UAS operations in the vicinity of their airports. Currently, 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), Part 107—Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, allows broad commercial use
of UAS in the United States for the first time. However, under Part 107, UAS operations directly
over people are still prohibited unless the operator has received a waiver or other approval from
FAA. sUAS aircraft may take many forms, including multi-rotor, fixed-wing, and hybrid vertical
takeoff and landing with fixed-wing forward flight vehicles. Some UAS operations near airports
will require the ability to fly over populated areas and therefore will require waivers to allow
operations over people. As a part of managing UAS operations, it will be important for airport
operators to understand the regulatory requirements and framework as well as to have the ability
to obtain waivers and exemptions. This guidebook will describe the regulatory frameworks that
currently exist so that airport managers and operators will be in a better position to interact with
and guide UAS users who fly in their vicinity.
1
Currently, under 14 CFR § 107, only low-risk operations have been allowed. For example, under the rules sUAS must
remain within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the remote pilot in command, avoid flying directly over non-participants, and
include one remote pilot for each vehicle flown. However, waivers can be obtained from the FAA to authorize (as examples)
beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) operations, operations over people, and one-pilot-to-many operations if the operator
demonstrates to the FAA that the operations can be performed safely (FAA, 2016).
1

2 Airports and Unmanned Aircraft Systems
1.3 Guidebook Audience and Format

The results of this guidance document represent a culmination of literature review and coor-
dination interviews with aviation industry groups, government agencies, UAS manufacturers/
dealers/sellers, advocacy groups, and users. The primary audiences for this guidebook are airport
operators and managers.
This guidebook is organized by topics identified as relevant to UAS management by airports.
It includes best practices related to airport coordination, operational planning, and contingency/
emergency standards. Additionally, it includes supporting tools, such as visual risk maps and a
detailed table of authorities that delineates the roles and responsibilities of UAS management
within airports. Each chapter addresses an important component of UAS management around
the airport vicinity. The tables, figures, and flowcharts were developed as quick reference tools to
enable airport operators and managers to understand the basic context of UAS operations and
provide further resources in case more information is required.
1.4 How to Use This Guidebook

This document is intended to be a high-level repository of relevant information for airport
operators and managers who want to manage UAS. It provides basic information as well as links
to further resources to be investigated if deeper UAS engagement is desired. Specifically, the
guidebook covers basic elements of UAS operations, safety/emergency management systems,
and risk factor maps. It is organized as follows:
• Because airport interactions with UAS are relatively new, the guidebook begins with an over-
view of the basic elements of unmanned operations. Chapter 2 provides the basic require-
ments for UAS operations. While these requirements are important for the UAS operator who
is planning a flight, it is also equally important for the airport manager to understand these
requirements as well in order to prepare for UAS operations. These include relevant regula-
tions and procedures that airports should be aware of when interacting with UAS operators.
• Another key component of airport UAS management is with safety and emergency best prac-
tices. Chapter 3 covers UAS safety and emergency management systems. Specifically, it dis-
cusses UAS considerations for traditional airport safety management systems (SMSs). It also
provides methods to develop a UAS contingency and emergency plan.
• A final aspect of UAS management that is covered in this guidebook is risk factor maps. Risk
maps are a valuable tool for airports to take inventory of the elements that may present opera-
tional hazards to UAS. These maps can in turn be provided by the airport to UAS operators
who need to develop a better understanding of the vicinity of their operations. Chapter 4
describes the development of this map and provides a sample map that other airports can
adapt to their own context.
• Chapter 5 describes engagement tools for airport operators to communicate these require-
ments to the relevant stakeholder. This chapter provides methods to implement the guidance
for UAS management that are described in Chapter 2 through Chapter 4.
• Chapter 6 applies the guidance and engagement methods described in the previous sections
by positing some real-world example situations of when airport managers and operators may
have to interact with UAS operators. These example case studies were developed based on
intensive interviews with airports, UAS operators, and other stakeholders who shared experi-
ences of UAS operations in the vicinity of airports.
• Chapter 7 provides a summary of additional engagement resources that airports can use to
implement management practices.

CHAPTER 2
Understanding the Requirements

to Manage UAS Operations
In order to manage UAS in the vicinity of airports, operators and managers must have a
general understanding of the requirements and elements of UAS operations. This chapter will
provide a basic overview of the elements of UAS operations in order to help airport managers
gain an understanding of the requirements to manage these operations near airports. It includes
development of concept of operations (Section 2.1); regulations for authorization, approval,
and notification (Section 2.2); privacy and data challenges (Section 2.3); and hyperlocal consid-
erations (Section 2.4).
2.1 Development of Concept of Operations

The concept of operations (CONOPS) for UAS is a description of the nature of UAS opera-
tions and the resulting impacts on relevant stakeholders and the environment. CONOPS devel-
opment is the first step in effectively employing UAS in the airport environment and is key to
the successful integration of UAS in the NAS. The goal of developing a CONOPS is to produce
a document that defines the UAS “system architecture” (Table 1) to be operated in the airport
environments, the airworthiness requirements of the system, the operational requirements of
such systems, the operational plan (e.g., intended missions and operational procedures), and the
personnel certification/training requirements to support the operational plan within the target
environment.
The purpose of this section is to ensure that airport operators and managers understand the
elements of UAS operations and are able to advise UAS operators who seek guidance on devel-
oping a CONOPS in their vicinity. In this section, CONOPS factors are discussed at a high-level
with airport-specific considerations. The section concludes with a list of resources to aid airport
management in the development or analysis of UAS CONOPS for airports.
2.1.1 System Architecture

The description of the system architecture for a CONOPS should define not only the UAS
system, but also the environment it is intended to operate within. These are the factors that need
to be considered by both the airport and UAS operator when planning a UAS mission. Table 1
describes each element of the system architecture that should be considered.
2.1.2 Operational Plan

The dynamic nature of airport operations requires a plan that is designed to suit the environ-
ment and is consistent with regulatory and safety requirements for operations. The operational
3

Table 1. Elements of system architecture for UAS CONOPS.
Element Description
At a minimum, the objective of a CONOPS includes the seamless integration of the

UAS into the already existing CONOPS architecture at airports.
To achieve this objective, emphasis should be placed on the (1) primary use for the
UAS, (2) method of operation, and (3) required crew and infrastructure necessary to
operate the UAS. Further requirements are elaborated in Section 2.2.
Goals and
Objectives Primary use for the UAS: The operation of UAS at airports may require prior
approval and authorization by FAA in the form of a certificate of authorization
(COA) issued to a public aircraft operator or a COA/exemption issued to the
operator of a civil UAS not operating under Part 107. For sUAS operated under
Part 107, if the airspace in which the sUAS is to be operated is Class B, Class C,
or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class
E airspace designated for an airport, the operator will be required to have air
traffic control (ATC) approval in the form of an airspace authorization or an
airspace waiver issued by FAA. Airports should review the contents of the
COA, exemption, and/or airspace authorization/waiver, which detail among
other things, the use of the system, and the method of operation.
Method of operation: The COA or other applicable FAA approval may also
contain the method and manner in which the operator intends to use the
system, including information on the manufacturer’s guidelines and system
certification from FAA. Airports can expect UAS to operate primarily in two
forms: those requiring prepared takeoff surfaces, and those not requiring such
surfaces. It is important that the same level of care and concern given to
manned aircraft is allotted to UAS as the potential for mishaps and hazardous
situations is very high.
Required crew and infrastructure: UAS operations require a different kind of crew
setup, placement, and infrastructure to support operations (Valavanis and
Vachtsevanos, 2015). At a minimum, the crew required for each UAS type, and
the communications methods and infrastructure (including the datalink
frequencies, voice communication techniques and frequencies, placement of
crew and hardware to support the system operation and regulatory
requirements and framework within which the UAS would be operated), should
be considered and identified.
The CONOPS should define what components would be integrated into the system as
well as those systems not needing integration, but may still impact the airport
environment nonetheless. Some key components of UAS to be included are (Maddalon
et al., 2013):
Remote pilot in command (PIC)/operator of the system
Unmanned aircraft/platform
Key Ground control station
Components of
the System Ground data terminal
Airborne data terminal
Electromagnetic frequencies and communication facilities
Power source consideration
Hangar spaces/shelter for the system
Potential risk factors including line-of-sight obstructions
The operation of the system is a step-by-step process that gives airport management a
complete picture of the UAS operation. These elements should be documented by the
System airport operations department/manager in coordination with FAA Airport District
Operation Office and ATC. In outlining the system operation, certain key areas need to be
addressed including:
Airworthiness requirements
Airspace segregation
Flight routes and procedures
Intra-Crew and ATC briefing and communications
Datalink frequency, bandwidth, and interference

Understanding the Requirements to Manage UAS Operations 5
Table 1. (Continued).
Element Description
Obstacle and line-of-sight considerations
Contingency/emergency plans
Safety management systems (SMSs)
Regulatory requirements
Integrating UAS into the airport environment poses a challenge of modifying existing
infrastructure to meet system requirements. Priority consideration should be given to
the communications/navigational facilities. These include:
Facility
Management Command and control datalink
Voice communication equipment
Navigational aid (NAVAID) utilization by UAS
There may be an initial desire to treat UAS as traditional manned aircraft, but the
inability of UAS to meet many requirements and restrictions placed on manned aircraft
is of particular concern to ATC and other airspace users. Integration of UAS and
manned aircraft operations requires evaluation and consideration of certain procedures.
Some procedures needing assessment include:
Takeoff and landing procedures
Limitations of
UAS Arrival and departure procedures
Operations
See/sense/detect-and-avoid procedures
Lost communication procedures
Weather minimums [Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) and Visual Flight Rules
(VFR) requirements]
Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs)
plan is a description of how UAS operations will be conducted within the airport environ-
ment from the airport manager, operations department/manager, and air traffic control (ATC)
perspective.
Before each planned UAS flight, the airport operations manager, operations department/
manager, and ATC must consider the operational environment elements factored into the
operational plan. To ensure that most pertinent factors are considered, the following consider-
ations are included:
a. Operational environment
b. Stakeholder coordination
c. Flight planning and execution
d. Regulatory guidance
Except flight planning, execution, and operational environment, other parts of the planned
UAS flight could be standardized, which may need to be revised periodically. The flight
planning and execution section would be unique for each mission flown and the overriding
conditions peculiar to that flight. A checklist approach that identifies sections that must be
addressed by all stakeholders prior to any flight could prove helpful and efficient to ensuring
all relevant sections of the operational plan are addressed completely.
2.1.3 Personnel Certification Requirements

Airport personnel accustomed to working with manned aircraft would find that major differ-
ences exist between manned and unmanned aircraft. Currently, no certification requirements

exist for the airport personnel working with UAS in airports. However, Part 107 (see Sec-
tion 2.2.2.1) identifies sUAS operating rules (Section B) and requirements for remote pilot
certification (Section C). Part 107 provides an initial set of guidelines and frameworks from
which airport operators can provide guidance to their personnel regarding the nature of UAS
operations; what is and is not permissible, and other operational considerations.
Further airport training and guidance for airport operations personnel in charge of safety
and security could provide additional value to its employees and ensure a culture of UAS safety.
Training of safety policy, procedures, and risk mitigations must be shared with the relevant
employees. In general, training should seek to introduce UAS types, operations, operational
limitations, procedures (airport and UAS), and authorization and approval processes.
While FAA has developed minimum requirements for sUAS remote pilot certification, there
is no consensus as to a standard training program for persons operating sUAS. As part of the
certification requirement toward certifying remote pilots, FAA has an online course found on
their website (www.faasafety.gov), as well as the aeronautical knowledge test which applicants
must undergo and pass to obtain a remote pilot certificate with an sUAS rating. This course and
knowledge test provide prospective operators with a wide range of UAS knowledge including an
introduction to sUAS, registration, operations and limitations, and best practices. The course is
not meant to be all-inclusive, but provides the operators with a very basic knowledge necessary
to safely operate sUAS in the NAS. Pilots may benefit from additional training and knowledge
relating to specific types of operations and operating environments.
To this end, airport operators could develop their training programs to meet their individual
needs while referencing FAA’s online training materials. They could ensure their training pro-
gram addresses the topics contained in FAA’s training course and knowledge test tailored to
incorporate other areas of importance specific to the environment of their airport, including its
vicinity and its unique airport operations. This training could enhance the effectiveness and effi-
ciency of sUAS operations around their airports, while promoting a high culture and standard
of aviation safety. Airport operators should also consider Part 107 certification for personnel
directly responsible for interacting with UAS operators to ensure full knowledge of the dynami-
cally changing regulatory environment.
2.1.4 Key Resources

The development of the appropriate CONOPS is defined in more detail in the following
resources:
• Handbook of Unmanned Aircraft Vehicles (Valavanis and Vachtsevanos, 2015), a multi-

volume handbook that addresses a number of topics including sections on UAS airspace
integration planning and UAS mission planning.
• “Perspectives on Unmanned Aircraft Classification for Civil Airworthiness Standards”
(Maddalon et al., 2013), a technical report from the NASA UAS in the NAS, which discusses
UAS classification and the relationship of those classifications to current manned aircraft
categories.
• Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Guide: Exploring Designs, Operations, Regulations, and
Economics (Terwilliger et al., 2017), Chapter 5: Business of Unmanned Aviation: From
Agencies to Startups, which provides a summary of different UAS stakeholders, their
considerations for starting a UAS operational program, and areas of growth for UAS appli-
cations in business.

2.2 Authorization, Approval, and Notification

While FAA has primary responsibility for regulating UAS operations, including the issuance
of relevant authorizations and approvals, it is also important for the airports to know how these
processes work. This section provides an overview of these regulations so that airport managers
and operators can better advise UAS operators in their vicinity.
2.2.1 Model Aircraft

UAS operations that are permissible under certain conditions are “model aircraft.” At the
time of this writing, FAA is currently developing and adopting new rules for model aircraft.
FAA is asking model aircraft users to follow the previously legislated rules specified in Sec-
tion 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. In October of 2018, the FAA
Reauthorization Act of 2018 repealed Section 336 from the previous authorization and defined
in Section 349 new legislation—“Exception for Limited Recreational Operations of Unmanned
Aircraft.” The remainder of this section will discuss Section 336 as the current rules to be
followed as per FAA. The section concludes with a summary of noteworthy provisions in
Section 349 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018.
In order to qualify as a “model aircraft”—under the Special Rule for Model Aircraft in Sec-
tion 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 and 14 CFR Part 101, Subpart E,
Special Rule for Model Aircraft—the aircraft must be flown strictly for hobby, recreational, or
educational purposes, flown in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and
within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization, must weigh no more
than 55 pounds, and must be operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way
to any manned aircraft. The definition of recreational use is provided in Figure 1. Model aircraft
operations must not endanger the airspace. Model aircraft operators are required to provide the
Figure 1. Definition of recreational use of UAS

(adapted from 14 CFR § 101; Section 336 of the FAA
Modernization and Reform Act, 2012; FAA, 2016a;
and FAA, 2016b).

airport operator and the ATC tower (if there is one) with prior notice of the operation when
operated within 5 miles of an airport. As a summary, Figure 2 depicts examples of Part 101 per-
missible (i.e., compliant) and non-compliant UAS operations.
According to FAA (2017a), an airport operator cannot deny (i.e., prohibit or prevent) such
operations, but an objection can be noted as unsafe or suspected unauthorized use can be
reported (FAA, 2017a); see Section 2.2.3 Reporting Suspected Unauthorized Use.
The following represent resources that may assist airport operators in external cooperation
and coordination with recreational and educational users in their community:
• FAA, Memorandum, Educational Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS): https://
www.faa.gov/uas/resources/uas_regulations_policy/media/interpretation-educational-use-
of-uas.pdf
• FAA, FAQ, Flying for Fun Under the Special Rule for Model Aircraft: https://www.faa.gov/
uas/faqs/#ffr
• FAA, Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft: https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/
model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf
• FAA, Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57a, Model Aircraft Operating Standards: https://www.
faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_91-57A_Ch_1.pdf
Under the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, with the repeal of current model aircraft rules
and instructions to FAA to enact new rules under the legislation’s directives, the new rules
shall contain once implemented provisions for UAS registration, requirements for BVLOS
operations for recreational model users, and automated authorization in controlled air-
space in “accordance with the mutually agreed upon operating procedures established with
Figure 2. 14 CFR § 101 compliant and non-compliant UAS

operations (Ed. = educational use, STEM = science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics).

the airport operator and airport ATC tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport).”
These provisions take effect once FAA implements the new rules.
2.2.2 Other FAA UAS Operational Approval Mechanisms

If a UAS operation does not meet the “model aircraft” requirements outlined in Section 2.2.1,
the process for permissible UAS operations in the NAS varies depending on whether the UAS is
operated under Part 91 or Part 107 (sUAS only) and whether the operation is considered a public
aircraft operation or civil aircraft operation. These approval mechanisms for both public and
civil operators are depicted in Figure 3 and described in the following subsections.
2.2.2.1 Part 107 sUAS

Part 107 provides clarity and a streamlined operational pathway for operators seeking to use
UAS commercially. In other words, Part 107 provides one pathway for legal UAS operations that
are not covered by the hobbyist/recreational requirement in Part 101 (Section 2.2.1). The basic
operating requirements for Part 107 operations are shown in Figure 4. Additionally, to provide
flexibility and accommodate new and innovative UAS technology, Part 107 contains a waiver
process for authorizing expanded operations beyond the scope of what is currently permitted
under the rule via a certificate of waiver when the operation can be conducted safely.
Figure 3. Federal UAS operational approval mechanisms.

Figure 4. 14 CFR Part 107 requirements and waiver procedures (adapted from 14 CFR § 107 and FAA, 2016b).
Waivable sections of Part 107 include:

• Operation from a moving vehicle or aircraft (§ 107.25)
• Daylight operation (§ 107.29)
• Visual line-of-sight aircraft operation (§ 107.31)
• Visual observer (§ 107.33)
• Operation of multiple small unmanned aircraft systems (§ 107.35)
• Yielding the right of way (§ 107.37(a))
• Operation over people (§ 107.39)
• Operation in certain airspace (§ 107.41)
• Operating limitations for small unmanned aircraft (§ 107.51)
Waiver Information in Part 107 can be found in the following resources:
• UAS remote pilots can apply for deviations from Part 107, as a certificate of waiver online
(expect a 90-day review and approval cycle, based on complexity of requested waiver): https://
www.faa.gov/uas/request_waiver/

• FAA, Waiver Application Instructions (2017): https://www.faa.gov/uas/request_waiver/

media/waiver_application_instructions.pdf
• FAA, Waiver Safety Explanation Guidelines for Part 107 Waiver Applications (2017): https://
www.faa.gov/uas/request_waiver/waiver_safety_explanation_guidelines/
As of August 22, 2018, FAA has granted a total of 1,988 Part 107 waivers, including:
• 1,818 Night waivers
• 106 Airspace waivers2
• 37 Operation of multiple small UAS waivers
• 28 Operating limitations waivers
• 22 Visual line-of-sight waivers
• 13 Operations over people waivers
• 13 Visual observer waivers
• 4 Moving vehicle/aircraft waivers
The following resources may assist airport operators to evaluate proposed operations within
their vicinity, specifically related to Part 107:
• FAA, AC 107-2: Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS): https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/
AC_107-2_AFS-1_Signed.pdf
• FAA, sUAS Part 107: The Small UAS Rule: https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/faa-uas-part107-
flyer.pdf
• FAA, Fact Sheet—Small Unmanned Aircraft Regulations (Part 107): https://www.faa.gov/
news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=20516
• FAA, Summary of Small Unmanned Aircraft Rule (Part 107): https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/
Part_107_Summary.pdf
2.2.2.2 Certifications of Waiver or Authorization

Prior to the implementation of Part 107, businesses seeking to operate UAS (as civil aircraft)
needed to apply for and receive a “Section 333 Exemption” and certificate of authorization
(COA) from FAA. Public aircraft operators did not need to obtain a Section 333 Exemption,
however they needed to obtain a public COA from FAA. These approval mechanisms are still
applicable for use in cases falling outside of Part 107, including, for example, the operation
of UAS weighing 55 lbs. or greater. Additionally, public aircraft operators can voluntarily elect
to operate UAS as civil aircraft under Part 107, or, for operations outside the bounds of
Part 107, as civil aircraft under a Section 333 Exemption and accompanying COA. While airport
operators are not involved with the process of issuing COAs, it is important for airport managers
and operations departments/managers to understand the requirements and processes that UAS
operators are required to follow to operate a UAS. Furthermore, airports operating UAS would
also use similar COA processes.
Public COA. Qualifying federal, state, and local agencies may choose to operate UAS as a
public aircraft operation. A public operation involves a “public aircraft” UAS (meaning that it is
publicly owned or operated on behalf of a public agency or government), carrying out a “govern-
mental function” under the authority of a COA issued to the government entity or as specified in
a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), between the using agency and FAA Headquarters. UAS
operated as public aircraft are required to comply with airspace restrictions and airport coordi-
nation requirements contained in the applicable COA or MOA.
2
The FAA no longer publishes airspace waivers in the waiver database, so the actual number of airspace waivers granted will
be higher.

The public COA process is summarized in Figure 5 and is specific to operators of public UAS
by government agencies, organizations, or their vendors. These COAs still exist today for flights
that do not meet requirements of Part 107 or their specific waiver-able conditions. Generally, the
COA procedure allows operation of a registered and marked aircraft by a certified pilot within
a specific geographic area, but also requires application and approval from the FAA Air Traffic
Organization (ATO). The process is handled through an online system (https://ioeaaa.faa.gov/
oeaaa/) and approvals are provided to the applicant for 2 years (unless otherwise specified in the
COA), and include a nationwide “blanket” COA with similar requirements to the Part 107 rules
[e.g., operation under 400 feet above ground level (AGL)].
Special Governmental Interest COA. Public and, in select cases, civil UAS operations may
need to be conducted to support activities which answer significant and urgent governmental
interests, including national defense, homeland security, law enforcement, and emergency oper-
ations objectives. In the event that these operations cannot be supported by FAA’s regular COA
processes or Part 107 waiver process due to their exigent circumstances, they may be conducted
under the authority of a COA addendum or Part 107 authorizations/waivers granted through
the special government interest process managed by System Operations Security. FAA may apply
this process if the following conditions are met:
• The proponent must be operating under the authority of an active COA (including Blanket
COAs) or in compliance with Part 107, as determined by System Operations Security.
• The UAS operations to be authorized must be conducted within a timeframe incompatible
with the processing time required for regular COA or Part 107 processes, as determined by
System Operations Security.
• The requested operations must be flown by a governmental entity or sponsored/supported
by a governmental entity (i.e., the operation is to be flown at the request of or is specifically
supported by a governmental entity) as determined by System Operations Security.
• The operations must directly support an active (e.g., not demonstration) homeland security,
law enforcement, or emergency operations effort, or some other response, relief, or recovery
activity benefiting a critical public good (e.g., restoration of an electrical grid or some other
Figure 5. COA process for UAS operations

before the Part 107 (adapted from FAA, 2014a
and FAA, 2017b).

critical infrastructure, or media coverage). The fulfillment of this requirement is determined

by System Operations Security in consultation, as needed, with FAA’s interagency partners.
Qualifying proponents of public UAS operations should contact the System Operations
Support Center (SOSC), a component of System Operations Security, at (202) 267-8276 for
assistance. A backup request should be sent to the SOSC via email at: 9-ator-hq-sosc@faa.gov.
Additional details are located in Chapter 7 of FAA Order JO 7200.23A, Unmanned Aircraft
Systems (August 1, 2017).
Section 333 Exemption. For commercial (civil) UAS not operated under Part 107, the
authority to operate derives from a special airworthiness certificate (SAC), restricted category
aircraft (14 CFR § 21.25), or an exemption (with COAs) issued under Section 333 of the FAA
Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. Section 333 directed the Secretary of Transportation
to determine whether UAS operations posing the least amount of public risk and no threat to
national security could safely be operated in the NAS and, if so, to establish requirements for the
safe operation of these systems in the NAS.
This provision was created prior to Part 107, but, as described in Figure 6, it is still relevant for
a small percentage of UAS operations that cannot be conducted under Part 107.
When a Section 333 Exemption is granted, the petitioner is issued a blanket COA. Blanket
COAs typically permit nationwide flights in Class G airspace at or below 400 feet AGL. If the
intended operation cannot be conducted under the provisions of the blanket COA, the propo-
nent must apply for a Standard COA for specific airspace. Civil UAS operated under Part 91
must comply with the airspace restrictions and airport coordination requirements contained
in the Section 333 Exemption and applicable COA. UAS operations conducted under a blan-
ket COA must be preceded by a NOTAM (72 to 24 hours before) featuring the pilot’s name
and address, specified operational area (location and altitude), time and type of operation,
and registration number of UAS (FAA, 2016c). NOTAMs can be filed by contacting one of the
following:
a) Local base operations or NOTAM issuing authority
b) NOTAM Flight Service Station at 1-877-4-US-NTMS (1-877-487-6867)
Figure 6. Description of the purpose of Section 333

(adapted from FAA, 2008; FAA, 2014a; and FAA, 2017b).

Additionally, sample NOTAMs filed for Killeen-Fort Hood Regional Airport and Southern
California Logistics Airport are provided in Figure 7 (Neubauer et al., 2015).
2.2.3 Reporting Suspected Unauthorized Use

If UAS operations are occurring within the vicinity of an airport that do not meet the require-
ments outlined in Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2, there are several options that can be used to report
suspected unauthorized use. These methods should be used for any suspicious, illegal, or unsanc-
tioned operations creating unsafe conditions within the NAS or in violation of state/local laws
and ordinances.
• FAA Hotline Reporting Form: https://hotline.faa.gov/
• Contact local Flight Standards District Office (FSDO): https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/
field_offices/fsdo/
• Contact state/local law enforcement if state laws governing use of UAS/aircraft or opera-
tional personnel are violated, including trespass, privacy, and/or operation of a vehicle (e.g.,
Florida State Statute 860.13, Operation of aircraft while intoxicated or in a careless or reckless
manner; 2017); reference Law Enforcement Engagement With Suspected Unauthorized UAS
Operations (FAA, 2016e) in reporting.
Figure 7. Sample NOTAMs issued for Killeen-Fort Hood Regional

Airport and Southern California Logistics Airport (Neubauer
et al., 2015).

2.2.4 Segregating UAS Traffic

Airport operators can expect to receive requests and/or notifications from civil, public, and
model aircraft operators to operate UAS in close proximity of a facility (i.e., within 5 statute
miles). While airports generally do not have the authority to approve or deny UAS operations
within close proximity, it is helpful to understand the rules for operating UAS near airports
so that airports can best inform these stakeholders. If operating within Classes B, C, D, or E
airspace, FAA policy requires that the UAS operator monitor the on-site ATC tower frequency
and call the ATC tower, on a landline, upon initiation and completion of operations. The rules
governing the operation of UAS within close proximity to airports differ for Part 107 and non-
Part 107 operations.
2.2.4.1 Part 107 Operations Within Vicinity of Airports

Part 107 uses the segregation of air traffic as the initial means of ensuring safety of opera-
tions. The rule requires UAS operators to fly their aircraft no higher than 400 feet AGL, unless
flown within a 400-foot radius of a structure and no higher than 400 feet above the structure’s
immediate uppermost limit, at speeds no greater than 100 miles per hour, within visual line of
sight, and only during daylight hours.
Certain portions of Part 107 will impact airports. Part 107 allows sUAS to operate in Class B,
Class C, or Class D airspace, or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E air-
space designated for an airport if the operator has obtained prior authorization from ATC. Prior
ATC authorization is not required for operations in Class G airspace.
Under Part 107, ATC approval for UAS to operate in certain airspace must be in the form of
either an airspace waiver or airspace authorization issued to the operator. Requests must be
submitted through the FAA’s DroneZone Portal or LAANC (discussed below). If a Part 107
operator contacts an ATC facility directly for authorization, FAA Order JO 7200.23A,
Unmanned Aircraft Systems, instructs ATC facilities not to issue the authorization, and instead
directs the operator to the FAA UAS website, http://www.faa.gov/uas/. It is also important
to note that, while Letters of Agreement (LOA) between an airport and a UAS operator may
be used in conjunction with an airspace waiver/authorization, they cannot be used in lieu of
airspace authorizations/waivers.
Currently, airspace authorization requests are subject to long waiting periods; it can take
FAA up to one year to issue an authorization. To address these challenges, FAA is collaborat-
ing with private industry to facilitate the sharing of airspace data in an effort to streamline the
airspace authorization process. Under FAA’s “UAS Data Exchange” umbrella, the agency will
support multiple partnerships, the first of which is the Low Altitude Authorization and Noti-
fication Capability or “LAANC.” LAANC is an industry-developed application with the goal
of providing UAS operators near real-time processing of airspace notifications and automatic
approval of requests that are below approved altitudes in controlled airspace.
Airspace data is provided through the UAS facility maps created by ATC facilities which
show the maximum altitude around airports where FAA may authorize operations without
further coordination with the individual ATC facility. Airspace authorization requests to
operate at altitudes above the limits of the UAS facility map will need to be processed using
FAA’s current online portal process. FAA launched a prototype evaluation of LAANC in
October 2017 and it is currently deploying in waves regionally across the country. As of
February 2019, LAANC is available at 480 airports. A list of facilities/airports participating in
LAANC is available at https://www.faa.gov/uas/programs_partnerships/uas_data_exchange/
airports_participating_in_laanc/#all.

2.2.4.2 Non-Part 107 Operations in Close Proximity to Airports

Public aircraft operators and civil aircraft operators not operating under Part 107 will be
required to comply with the airport notification/coordination requirements of the applicable
COA. The rules governing the operation of model aircraft in the vicinity of airports also differ
from those for operations occurring under Part 107 and/or public/civil operations occurring
under a COA/Section 333 Exemption. Under the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012,
Section 336, and 14 CFR Part 101, Subpart E, Special Rule for Model Aircraft, model aircraft
operators are only required to provide the airport operator and the ATC tower (if there is one)
with prior notice of the operation when operated within 5 miles of an airport.
2.2.5 Airport Operator Review of UAS Operational Requests

Civil and public UAS operating under a COA (and a Section 333 Exemption for civil UAS)
may be required to obtain permission from an airport before operating within 5 statute miles of
an airport. sUAS operated under Part 107 are not required to obtain permission from an airport
operator before conducting operations in the vicinity of an airport. However, Part 107 prohib-
its sUAS from interfering with airport operations and an airspace authorization from ATC is
required for operations in Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries
of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport. Model aircraft operators are
required to provide notification to an airport (and ATC if there is a tower), before operating
within 5 miles of an airport.
While permission from an airport may not always be required, airport operators can expect
to receive requests from those within their community to operate UAS in close proximity of a
facility (i.e., within 5 statute miles). In such cases, a detailed analysis of the request may assist
to uncover potential safety or liability risks associated with the request. Figure 8 represents a
process to evaluate such requests and possible actions or decision points, given the applicant
provided information.
The following represents an overview of the linear review process:
1. Is the request from a remote pilot seeking to fly under 14 CFR Part 101 (Subpart E, Special Rule
for Model Aircraft)? If yes, proceed to step a; if no, evaluate as a non-Part 101 UAS operation
(proceed to step 2).
NOTE: Items 1a to 1e are considered best practices, as an airport operator cannot deny
(i.e., prohibit or prevent) recreational (Part 101) model aircraft operations, but an objection
can be noted and unsafe or suspected unauthorized use can be reported (FAA 2017, Flying
for Fun Under the Special Rule for Model Aircraft).
a. Is the proposed use for personal enjoyment or education use (e.g., evaluation of a UAS design
or exhibition to promote STEM)? If yes, proceed; if no, object, deny endorsement, and rec-
ommend user seek appropriate federal operational approval (e.g., Part 107, public/civil
COA, or SAC).
b. Confirm the user will not be receiving compensation (e.g., payment, goods, or services in kind)
or they are not capturing data for a faculty-led research project. If yes, proceed; if no, object,
deny endorsement, and recommend user seek appropriate federal operational approval
(see Figure 2 for a breakdown of typically authorized vs. not-authorized operations under
Part 101).
c. Does the proposed use (operation) and the specific UAS comply with the requirements of
a national community-based organization (CBO), such as the Academy of Model Aero
nautics? If yes, proceed; if no, object, deny endorsement, and recommend user either
modify proposed use to comply with CBO requirements or seek appropriate federal
operational approval.

Figure 8. UAS operational approval evaluation flowchart.
d. Does the proposed use comply with state and local laws governing such use (e.g., UAS, aircraft,
or vehicles) in your area? If yes, proceed; if no, request the user complies (revises opera-
tional plan to address specific requirements and exhibits proof of compliance), or else
object and deny endorsement.
e. Has the user contacted all airports, heliports, and seaplane bases within a 5SM radius of the
proposed operational area? (NOTE: check location using tools such as B4UFly). If yes, and
all additional criteria have been satisfied, approve/support operations; if no, request the
user complies and exhibits proof of compliance, or else object and deny endorsement.
2. Is the user either a public (e.g., governmental organization or public school/college/university)
or civil (all others) operator? If yes, proceed to step a; if no, request further information.
NOTE: Public COA holders are permitted to self-certify remote pilots.
a. Has the user obtained appropriate Federal approval for operation in your area (as defined below;
FAA UAS operational requirement)? If yes, proceed; if no, deny approval/endorsement
(such flight not permissible) until criteria are met.
i. Under Part 107: in Class G airspace with a registered and marked sUAS conform-
ing to weight and performance limits (e.g., less than 55 pounds MTOW, less than
100mph/87knots; see Section 2.2.2.1).

ii. Under Part 107 with certificate of waiver: In accordance with Part 107, except where
allowable deviation is specified in approved certificate of waiver.
iii. Under public/civil COA, within approved (or defined) operational area or under
nationwide blanket COA requirements: In Class G airspace with a registered and
marked sUAS conforming to weight and performance limits (e.g., less than 55 pounds
MTOW, less than 100mph/87knots); either case also requires pilot to file a NOTAM
24 to 72 hours before operation.
iv. Under SAC: within specified requirements of approval.
b. Will the flight be conducted under the authority of a certified and current PIC (as defined
below; FAA UAS operational requirement)? If yes, proceed; if no, deny approval/
endorsement (such flight not permissible) until criteria are met.
i. Operations under Part 107: Operator with FAA certified Remote Pilot Certificate
(certified within last 2 years).
ii. Operations under Civil COA (with Section 333 Exemption) or SAC: Current manned
rated pilot (applicable certification must be current within last 2 years; e.g., any
Part-61 certification except student pilot; includes sport, private, instrument, com-
mercial, and airline transport pilot).
iii. Operations under Public COA: Organizations are permitted to self-certify remote
pilots (confirm certification endorsement).
c. Does the user have an operational plan, including appropriate SMS and checklists, specific to
the UAS (non-mandatory best practice, with exception of checklist which is a FAA UAS
operational requirement)? If yes, and any additional criteria you deem necessary have been
met, proceed; if no, deny approval/endorsement until criteria are met (i.e., recommend
they create and submit an appropriate operational plan addressing specific areas of concern
or desired detail).
d. Has the user contacted all applicable stakeholders that may be affected by operation (e.g.,
landowner[s], other government agencies, or other parties; non-mandatory best prac-
tice)? If yes, proceed; if no, deny approval/endorsement until criteria are met (i.e., contact
affected parties).
e. Does the proposed use comply with state and local laws governing such use (e.g., UAS, aircraft,
or vehicles) in your area (FAA UAS operational requirement)? If yes, and all additional
criteria you may have has been satisfied approve/support operations; if no, request the
user complies (revises operational plan to address specific requirements and exhibits
proof of compliance), or else deny approval/endorsement.
2.2.6 Further Resources

The following represent resources that may assist airport operators in external cooperation/
coordination with public and civil (i.e., commercial) UAS operators in their community:
• Know Before You Fly website: http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/
• FAA
– UAS webpage (including Getting Started, Beyond the Basics, and FAQ): https://www.faa.
gov/uas/
– State and Local Regulation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Fact Sheet: https://www.faa.gov/
uas/resources/uas_regulations_policy/media/uas_fact_sheet_final.pdf
– FAA Order JO 7200.23A (August 1, 2017): https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/
Order/JO_7200.23A_Unmanned_Aircraft_Systems_(UAS).pdf
• Academy of Model Aeronautics
– National Model Aircraft Safety Code: https://www.modelaircraft.org/files/105.pdf
– Safety Handbook: https://www.modelaircraft.org/sites/default/files/100.pdf

• Online Aeronautical Charts (featuring UAS NOTAMs; i.e., DROTAMs; see “Layers—
Weather”): https://skyvector.com
• Example UAS Operational Checklists/Manuals
– Pre-flight: https://support.dronedeploy.com/v1/docs/pre-flight-checklist
– General checklist: https://inside.mines.edu/UserFiles/File/PoGo/Compliance%26Ethics/
UAS_Checklist_PrePostFlight_Draft2016Nov5.pdf
– Commercial Best Practices: https://www.aig.com/content/dam/aig/america-canada/us/
documents/business/specialty/guide-lrc-aero_business-uas-best-practices-sample-final.pdf
– Pre/post-operation checklist: https://www.faasafety.gov/files/helpcontent/courses/suas_
5095_lms_2/resources/index.htm
– Example Operations Manual: http://www.pipermountainaerial.com/uploads/1/0/2/0/
102025336/piper-mountain-aerial_uas-operations-manual.pdf
2.3 Privacy and Data Considerations

This section briefly discusses privacy and data considerations for UAS operations in the vicin-
ity of airports. It is not in the airport’s authority to dictate or provide legal guidance regarding
UAS privacy for those operating in the vicinity of their airport. However, there are some con-
siderations worth noting so that airports can best inform these stakeholders. Additionally, when
these operations are established under agreement with the airport, some additional privacy/
considerations are established.
The very characteristics that make UAS so promising for commercial uses, including their
small size, maneuverability and capacity to carry various kinds of recording or sensory devices,
are the same characteristics that raise privacy issues among members of the public. Public con-
cerns related to privacy are commonly associated with UAS operations that collect data including
videos and images that, if disclosed, could reveal private information of people and businesses.
This concern is relevant for both Part 101 (hobbyist), public UAS operations (COA [or certifi
cate of waiver] and Part 107), and commercial UAS operations (Part 107 or Section 333 Exemption).
To mitigate these concerns, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce) brought together stakeholder groups includ-
ing privacy advocates, governments and industry to craft privacy best practices, which were
endorsed and published in 2016 (Table 2).
Additionally, if an airport enters into an agreement with a UAS operator (e.g., a routine per-
mission to operate from the airport or its surrounding airspace; a tenant agreement to operate
routinely from the airport), then privacy and data policy issues should be considered to maintain
the appropriate level of privacy as necessary for the nature of those operations and the agree-
ment. The most direct approach to addressing this concern would be the implementation of a
Table 2. Guidance for airport privacy considerations.
Privacy Considerations Airport’s Role
Share best privacy and practice resources with operators inquiring about
Unauthorized photography operating in vicinity of airport
of people and property Direct them to review any additional community or organizational
standards applicable to the UAS operator
Disclosure of sensitive Agreements for routine operation with UAS operators should address any
information (under airport privacy concerns between the airport and the UAS operator (e.g.,
agreement with operator) establishment of a non-disclosure agreement)

non-disclosure agreement between all parties involved in supporting the operation. Potential
topics of disclosure include operator’s clientele and business specific details regarding the opera-
tions performed under the agreement with the airport. A non-disclosure agreement would allow
all parties to agree upon mutually what is ineligible for disclosure as well as the limits on the
agreement.
While privacy is an important consideration, it is not regulated by aviation entities. Neither

the airport nor FAA has the authority to regulate on the basis of privacy considerations. Some
additional resources for reference regarding privacy and community-based guidance on UAS
best practices have been developed and are referenced below (AUVSI, 2012; Know Before You
Fly, 2015; and NTIA, 2016).
The following resources listed below can be referenced for additional guidance on UAS privacy
policy, best practice, and considerations.
• Voluntary Best Practices—NTIA (NTIA, 2016): This document addresses UAS guidance for
privacy, transparency, and accountability for both private and commercial UAS use.
• Know Before You Fly, UAS Best Practices (Know Before You Fly, 2015): This website outlines
several coordination-related best practices to protect privacy.
• AUVSI, Code of Conduct (AUVSI, 2012): This code provides best practices for “safe, non-
intrusive” UAS operations in order to “accelerate public confidence in these systems.” It pro-
vides a checklist that is categorized by guidance to achieve safety, professionalism, and respect
in UAS operations.
2.4 Hyperlocal Restrictions and Federal Preemption

Section 2.2 provided a basis for the current governing regulations related to UAS operations.
As a general matter, FAA’s safety authority preempts any state or local government regulation of
aircraft operations. However, state and local governments do retain certain authority to limit the
aeronautical activities of their own departments and institutions. State and local governments
have enacted UAS rules that test the boundaries of this authority.
In response to a flurry of local and state UAS policy proposals, FAA clarified in a Fact Sheet
on State and Local Regulation of UAS that FAA maintains regulatory authority over matters
pertaining to aviation safety. The fact sheet explains why a consistent regulatory system for
aircraft operations, including UAS, is essential to ensuring aviation safety. The fact sheet also
provides examples of state and local laws affecting UAS for which consultation with FAA is
recommended, such as “restrictions on flight altitude or flight paths, regulation of the navigable
airspace, and mandating UAS-specific equipment or training.” Furthermore, the fact sheet gives
examples of UAS laws likely to fall within state and local police power, such as “requirements
for police to obtain a warrant prior to using UAS for surveillance; prohibitions on the use of
UAS for voyeurism; exclusions on using UAS for hunting or fishing, or harassing individuals
engaged in those activities; and prohibitions on attaching firearms or other weapons to a UAS”
(FAA, 2015a). In 2018, FAA issued a press release (2018, July 20), which reiterated the fact that,
“[c]ities and municipalities are not permitted to have their own rules or regulations governing
the operation of aircraft.”
In 2017, one such local ordinance, in the City of Newton, Massachusetts, was involved in a
case of first impression, laying the foundation for similar ordinances across the country to be
challenged. In the Newton case a federal judge struck down parts of the ordinance that conflicted

with federal law and the intent of Congress. The stricken parts were the city’s ban of drone
flights over private property at or below 400 feet without the property owner’s permission; the
requirement to register the drones with the city; and a ban on drones overflying schools, city
property, or sporting events without specific permission (“Judge overturns local law that effec-
tively banned drones over small town,” 2017, September 22).
It is noteworthy to recognize that a property owner’s right remains to allow or prohibit take-
offs and landings from their property. This extends to public land as well as private residences,
but does not conflict with federal law on the governance of the airspace above said land. This is
why the National Park Service, for instance, is within its right to prohibit takeoffs and landings
from the surface or require a person request permission.

CHAPTER 3
Safety and Emergency

Management Best Practices
It is important for airport operators to understand how to deal with UAS accidents and inci-
dents, including sightings of unauthorized UAS operations, and their potential ripple effect on
airport operations. This chapter describes best practices related to handling emergency situa-
tions due to UAS operations in the vicinity of an airport. In developing these topics, both tactical
operations (reacting to a UAS incident) and strategic planning (guidance on anticipating UAS
incidents) were considered.
3.1 Safety Management Systems

SMSs address the safety risks to people, property, and businesses through the declaration of
an organizational safety policy, promotion of an overall safety culture within the organization,
safety risk management (SRM) personnel and protocols to address and mitigate potential safety
hazards, and a safety assurance policy to ensure long-term safety is maintained as it evolves.
A relatively recent tool used by airports, an SMS document, captures this system. This allows
dissemination 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 dem-
onstration of the organization’s safety protections. Note that most smaller airports may not have
an SMS in place. To date, a clear mandate for inclusion of UAS-specific SMS sections or documents
does not exist. However, it is a best practice to integrate UAS safety within an SMS program.
ACRP’s SMS guidance for airports (Ludwig et al., 2007) defines SMS and system safety as
follows:
• “A safety management system (SMS) is a formal, top-down business-like approach to managing
safety risk that is built on basic system safety principles” (Ludwig et al., 2007).
• “System safety is the application of engineering and management principles, criteria, and tech-
niques to achieve an acceptable level of safety throughout all phases of a system” (Ludwig
et al., 2007).
Additionally, ATO has published its own Safety Management System Manual (2017d) to
provide SMS specific guidance on the overall safety assurance of an evolving NAS. Additional
guidance regarding SMS principles is contained in AC 120-92B: Safety Management Systems
for Aviation Service Providers (FAA, 2015).
3.1.1 UAS Considerations for an Airport SMS

A well-defined airport SMS could be sufficient to address the integration and approval needs
of UAS operations at the airport, including operations within the vicinity of the airport, opera-
tions by airport tenants, operations from outside organizations, and operations performed by
airport personnel in support of airport operations.
22

Safety and Emergency Management Best Practices 23
Table 3. UAS considerations for airport safety management systems.
Element SMS Considerations
An airport’s policy statement should remain consistent so long as it is sufficiently broad and
inclusive such that UAS operations are addressed implicitly or explicitly.
Safety Policy
An airport’s organizational structure may wish to identify special safety personnel to oversee UAS
operational safety.
Airport SRM should promote best practices in the assessment of UAS operations and systems
integration within the SRM and safety assurance (SA) processes.
It should account for safety risks within the airport’s control, such as approval of public and
commercial UAS operations in the vicinity of the airport. It should also consider safety risks
resulting from potential nearby hobbyist activities such as those from nearby neighborhoods,
arks, or schools.
SRM should utilize tools such as UAS Facility Maps (FAA 2017e) and Geographic Risk Maps.
Safety Risk Risk Mitigation strategies should consider at a minimum:
Management
Airport emergency planning
Contingency management
Issuance of NOTAMs
Personnel training
New infrastructure/resources (e.g., changes in airspace, changes in safety resources at
airport, or new off-limit areas)
UAS tenants, operators, and maintainers should be integrated into the airport’s safety culture.
Periodic training should include UAS tenants, operators, and maintainers. These training sessions
can be conducted as workshops and webinars with updates and information shared through
Safety various mediums (e.g., websites, web application, flyers) developed to engage with the community.
Promotion Safety changes resulting from UAS integration should be communicated to all
appropriate employees.
UAS safety lessons learned should be shared with airport employees, tenants, and other
airport stakeholders.
Safety Risk Assurance (SRA) should include regular UAS safety reviews (e.g., internal or external
safety audits) to ensure UAS operations are adhering to the safety standards of the airport.
UAS incident/accident reports should be shared with airport safety personnel to ensure lessons
Safety Risk learned are captured and newly identified hazards are addressed by the SRA process.
Assurance
Corrective action should be taken to address new safety issues identified by a UAS safety review.
Coordination with FAA and local law enforcement could help facilitate the identification of safety
hazards from off-airport entities operating in the vicinity of and/or over airport property/airspace.
UAS considerations for SMS development or revision: In Table 3, a number of special con-
siderations for the SMS are provided for each major element of the SMS. Typically, safety and
security considerations are handled by the airport operations department or managers in the
case of smaller airports that fall under Part 139 certification. Larger airports have a dedicated
safety officer that oversees the development and management of the SMS.
Utilization of SMS by airport for the integration of UAS: The SRM/safety risk assurance
(SRA) process should be triggered with the integration of any related operational change includ-
ing any new UAS system introduced into the airport environment under an SMS. This is not
currently a regulatory requirement, but it is a recommended practice to ensure that operations
sponsored by the airport or airport tenants are conducted in adherence to the established safety
culture of the airport.
For the integration of a new UAS into the airport environment, an SRM review and an SRA will
be required to examine, identify, and mitigate all potential hazards prior to approval of operations.

This review should include, but not be limited to the details of the operation, its contingency
management strategies, personnel, airport access requirements, infrastructure requirements,
and ATC coordination. For the integration of long-term infrastructure to support UAS opera-
tions, or the development of an environment for routine UAS operations and support (i.e.,
launch and recovery systems, control stations, communication systems, staging areas for runway
takeoff and landing), the SRM/SRA process is also required to determine the impact of these
changes and mitigate risks to an acceptable level. Other uses of the SMS for support of UAS can
vary based upon circumstances including the airport’s other SMS requirements.
With airport operations, promotion of safety is also important. Given that some UAS opera-
tors may have limited or no aviation experience, it is important that fundamental SMS safety
promotion and training is provided to those tenants/operators performing the UAS operation.
Figure 9 presents a notional workflow of the safety risk assessment process for an airport
with an established SMS. Within the workflow, the airport has direct authority to accept or
Figure 9. Notional safety management systems/safety risk assessment workflow

for airports.

Table 4. Safety management system resources.
Topic Resources
Safety Management Systems (web portal) (FAA 2017b)

AC 120-92B: Safety Management Systems for Aviation Service Providers
(FAA, 2015)
SMS Manuals
Air Traffic Organization Safety Management System Manual
(FAA, 2017d)
ICAO Safety Management Manual (ICAO, 2009)
FAA/Eurocontrol ATM Safety Techniques and Toolbox (FAA and

SRM/SRA Guidance Eurocontrol, 2007)
System Safety Handbook (FAA 2017c)
FAA Order 5200.11: FAA Airports (ARP) Safety Management System

(FAA 2010)
AC 150/5200-37: Introduction to Safety Management Systems (SMS)
for Airport Operators (FAA, 2007)
External SMS Efforts, Part 139 Rulemaking: Documentation from
SMS for Airports Guidance Airport SMS Pilot Studies (FAA, 2017a)
and Resources ACRP Report 1: Safety Management Systems for Airports, Volume 1:
Overview (2007)
ACRP Report 1: Safety Management Systems for Airports, Volume 2:
Guidebook (2009)
ACRP Synthesis 37: Lessons Learned from Airport Safety Management
Systems Pilot Studies (2012)
The Safety Risk Management of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (Clothier

SMS for UAS Operators and Walker, 2014).
Guidance Safety Risk Assessment for UAV Operation (Wackwitz and Boedecker,
2015)
reject proposed operations launching and/or recovering from its airspace (e.g., operated by
airport or airport tenant). Additionally, the airport can collect data of local incidents/accidents,
pilot reports, and reports to law enforcement regarding unsafe or unauthorized UAS opera-
tions. For either path, the safety risk assessment process commences to determine if a hazard
exists exceeding acceptable risk thresholds to warrant mitigation (as documented in the airport
SMS’s SRA process). Mitigation can be performed by the requesting UAS operator when the
SRA is addressing a requested new UAS operation. Mitigations can also be performed by the
airport and other relevant stakeholders (e.g., ATC and law enforcement). Once risks are suffi-
ciently mitigated, the results of the process should be documented and any further actions (e.g.,
approval to UAS operator to commence operations) performed.
3.1.2 Safety Management System Resources

Table 4 defines resources that provide more guidance and insight on SMS development.
The resources in the first three topics (SMS Manuals, SRM/SRA Guidance, and SMS for Airports
Guidance and Resources) possess generic SMS information, while the resources in the last topic
(SMS for UAS Operators Guidance) are specific to UAS.
3.2 UAS Contingency Management

Contingency management defines how the system and people should respond to common
UAS in-flight hazards. For such hazards, a contingency management plan defines the system
response and/or procedures that will be executed upon detection of a contingency state. Table 5
presents several common UAS contingency types with a brief overview.

Table 5. Common UAS contingency event types.
Contingency
High-Level Overview
Events
Lost link procedures define the method of detection and response to a loss of
Lost Link positive control of the UAS as a result in an intermittent or full loss of radio
frequency communication between the ground control station and the UAS.
Lost communications with ATC procedures define the pilot’s response in the event
Lost
that communication with ATC is lost. These procedures could include technical
Communications
debugging of the appropriate systems, communication through alternative means
with ATC
(e.g., phone), transponder settings (if equipped), or initiating a return home.
Lost GPS procedures address the situation in which the quality of GPS
measurement of aircraft position and altitude are not sufficient to navigate and/or
Degraded or Lost maintain safe operation.
GPS
In addition to notifying ATC, the procedure must define the process to safely land
or terminate the UAS manually, since most automated operation relies upon GPS.
An engine failure procedure must provide guidance on how to determine that the
engine has failed or is failing based upon engine parameters, altitude loss, and
audible cues.
Typically, contingency management of an engine loss for fixed-wing UAS involves
locating a suitable location within the power-off glide distance of the aircraft
(unpopulated or sparsely populated), notification of ATC, and attempting to restart
Engine Failure
the engine (time permitting).
For multi-rotor UAS, contingency management must consider the capabilities of the
platform. It is typical for a multi-rotor UAS to lose control and crash upon an
engine failure. Some systems are equipped with suitable propulsion redundancy
and/or advanced control algorithms permitting limited control suitable for an
emergency landing.
Loss of electrical power represents a challenging contingency state as most flight

Loss of Electrical controls rely upon electrical power to operate. Contingency procedures for a loss
Power of electrical power would identify any diagnostics and guidance on suitable safety
notifications.
A fly away is typically a more extreme case of a lost link, in which the aircraft not
only has a loss of positive control from the PIC, but has also deviated from its pre-
Fly Away planned contingency route. To address fly away, follow procedures to determine
that the aircraft has deviated from its intended path, coordinate with ATC regarding
the emergency situation, and terminate flight when available.
Despite the benefits of integrating UAS operations in and around airports, there are accom-
panying challenges and potential uncertainties impacting airport operations posed by routine
UAS operation within its vicinity. To this end, airport managers need to be conversant with
the possible contingency modes of UAS to better anticipate and mitigate the impact of UAS
operating within a contingency mode. Airports should consider developing a general contin-
gency plan for UAS operations around an airport that addresses the roles and responsibilities
of different stakeholders, including, among others, UAS operators, airport personnel, and
local ATC.
However, the uniqueness of each unmanned system also requires that airport managers
coordinate with the UAS crew on the plans of action that may not fit the general contingency
plan. Such plans should be well-articulated and distributed to appropriate stakeholders so that
each has clear and concise roles, responsibilities, and courses of action when such situations
arise. This has the potential to mitigate or reduce the adverse effects of unplanned situations.
Of the various contingencies identified above, only lost link contingency planning is
well-defined within FAA documents. FAA Order JO 7110.65X (2017) provides guidance to

traffic controllers regarding how to handle UAS lost link events. While this guidance is geared
toward ATC personnel, this document should be considered as part of the coordination
between ATC and airport operations departments/managers responsible for handling lost link
procedures.
UAS contingency planning is unique to its operational environment, equipage, capabili-
ties, and crew. Section 3.2.1 briefly defines the elements required for a contingency plan and
Section 3.2.2 describes contingency planning procedures for a lost link event.
3.2.1 Elements of a Contingency Plan

This section defines the key elements that must be addressed in a UAS contingency plan.
Definition of Failure: UAS operations are still evolving and the potential for unpredictability
during operations remains very high. A contingency plan is a series of actions to be taken in
the event of an unforeseen or unpredictable event occurring during a planned mission (FAA,
2006; Fern, Rorie, and Shiveley, 2014). This section generally describes steps to help prevent a
hazardous condition from further developing into a dangerous or fatal situation. Some possible
occurrences identified include loss of communication with ATC, engine failure, loss of electrical
power, and navigation failures including lost link, GPS failure, and fly away.
Method of Detection: The prompt identification of a potential situation requiring activation
of an alternative plan is key to minimizing the adverse effect of such a situation. Different
methods of detection exist for emergency situations in UAS operations; the most effective
means of detection includes a combination of detection methods. Some methods of detection
in UAS operation available to airport operators include verbal communication from UAS
flight crew, visual identification of UAS flight modes, and electronic detection methods such
as ATC radar displays. A combination of more than one of these modes would be an effective
means to confirm a situation exists and trigger appropriate response to meet the situation.
Action by Relevant Parties: Based on the nature of the situation, the following parties would
respond:
• Unmanned aircraft,
• Remote PIC and crew,
• ATC/airport manager, and
• Others.
The contingency plan must define the roles, responsibilities, and procedures of each party
to ensure proper coordination among relevant stakeholders.
3.2.2 Example: Lost Link Procedure Considerations

Lost link procedures are one of the most common types of contingency management pro-
cedures. A lost link situation occurs whenever the pilot loses positive control of the unmanned
aircraft because of a full or partial interruption in radio frequency communication between the
ground control system and the unmanned aircraft (Fern, Rorie, and Shiveley, 2014). This is
sometimes referred to as loss of command and control link or “C2” link.
ATC requirements for UAS lost link events involving UAS operating under a COA or Sec-
tion 333 Exemption are provided in FAA Order 7110.65X (2017), Section 5-2-9, “Unmanned
Aircraft Systems (UAS) Lost Link.” Figure 10 describes the process for dealing with a lost link
problem.

Figure 10. Roles and responsibilities for a lost link procedure (RPIC = remote pilot in command).
Other Responses: A lost link procedure could include additional support including the use
of spotters to help locate the aircraft, emergency personnel to clear the scene near the rally/
termination point, airport rescue and firefighting or other suitable firefighting/first responder
organizations support to address any injury or fires resulting from an unsuccessful recovery.
3.2.3 Airport Considerations for Contingency Management

In general, UAS contingency management’s purpose is to mitigate the risk of a UAS incident/
accident by addressing common technical issues through pre-defined and pre-coordinated pro-
cedures. Some considerations for UAS contingency management that should be addressed by
airports include, but are not limited to the following:
• Identify the person responsible for reviewing contingency management plans for UAS opera-
tions at the airport or in its vicinity.
• Identify hazards addressed by the contingency management plan, and determine if those
hazards are sufficiently mitigated as per the SRA defined in the airport’s SMS.
• Ensure that the contingency management plan does not produce secondary or tertiary
hazards through its impact to the terminal airspace and airport surface operations.
Airport-specific contingency management plan factors should be developed by airport
management in coordination with their operations department/manager as well as local ATC.
It is important to ensure that the UAS emergency plan and/or airport emergency plan (AEP)
sufficiently addresses preparation and response to hazards produced by the contingency state
and/or the results of a UA failing to return home safely.

3.3 Guidance for Emergency Plans for UAS Operations

at Airports
This section provides guidance on developing an AEP for UAS operations at airports or inte-
grating UAS emergency considerations to an existing AEP. An AEP should provide guidance on:
• Preparation for an impending emergency;
• Response to that emergency with a primary goal of public safety; and
• Recovery post-accident including investigation, clean-up, reporting, and restoration of air-
port services.
An AEP is required for all airports certified under 14 CFR Part 139 § 325 (2017), which
includes most non-general aviation airport categories supported by this guidance document.
Airport operators should reference FAA’s guidance under AC 150/5200-31C, “Airport Emer-
gency Plan” (FAA, 2009).
For all other airports, even if an AEP is not required, documentation of UAS emergency
planning at the airport would improve the overall safety of routine UAS operation at the airport
and promote a safety culture within the organization. The guidance provided herein should be
applicable to either circumstance.
Additional references are included in Section 3.3.6 of this guidebook.
3.3.1 UAS Incident/Accident Procedures

The UAS emergency plan must define UAS incident/accident procedures (i.e., how the
actors within the emergency plan respond to the emergency, including pre-emergency and
post-emergency response). An airport’s AEP’s hazard-specific plans addressing aircraft
accidents and incidents is a great resource to support the development of these procedures;
however, UAS-specific considerations should also be addressed, such as those highlighted in
Table 6. The airport will follow a process similar to the one shown in Table 7 to develop their
UAS emergency plan.
3.3.2 Communication Planning

The UAS emergency plan’s communication planning section should address UAS-specific
gaps in the existing communication plan.
Table 6. Considerations for UAS incident/accident procedure

development.
Examples of UAS-specific considerations for Emergency Plan Incident/Accident Procedures
UAS type, size, and operational characteristics

Procedures to mitigate risk identified by the airport’s SMS for UAS operations for UAS
incidents/accidents during:
Uncoordinated operations (e.g., hobbyist operations), and
Operator-Airport Coordinated operations;
Procedures established by the UAS operator’s SMS or emergency management plan;
Air-to-air and air-to-ground collision incidents/accidents;
Procedures for handling incidents/accidents involving unsafe use.

Table 7. Process for UAS incident/accident procedure development.
Current AEP or similar relevant emergency plans

Emergency procedures from airport, local, state, and federal response agencies
Existing SMS documents from airport and/or UAS operator(s)
Collect UAS contingency management plan(s)
Associated UAS manuals and SOPs
UAS-specific documents including material safety data sheets and recovery
procedures
Identify gaps in current aircraft incident/accident procedures

Analyze
Identify UAS-specific hazards and procedures identified from collected materials
Draft new UAS incident/accident procedures such that it

o Addresses all identified gaps
Develop o Aligns with airport, local, state, and federal response agencies’ procedures
o Includes standard operating procedures for pre- and post- accident
response
The plan should consider the location of UAS personnel during the operation and their roles
within the routine operation and emergency procedures. Off-airport resources must also be
identified, including local police, firefighting, and rescue services, and the communication infra-
structures needed for the response to a UAS incident/accident.
The plan should include the proper procedures for communication that includes appropriate
UAS operations and support personnel. An example of this communication is provided in
Figure 11. In the example, the UAS PIC, who could be located on airport or off airport, is able to
communicate with airport operations via VHF radio using the airport operations frequency.
This communication allows the UAS operator to provide airport operations with UAS-specific
information, including details of incident/accident and hazardous materials (if relevant), as
well as the identification and location of UAS crew members (including visual observers). A
typical communication plan [as shown in AC 150/5200-31C (FAA, 2009)] includes the decla-
ration of communication frequencies between various emergency response organizations.
Those elements are excluded to highlight the UAS PIC’s relationship with the key response
team entities.
When defining the organization and assignment of responsibilities section of the communi-
cation plan, the plan must incorporate the roles and responsibilities of all personnel, tailored
toward any UAS-specific needs. Furthermore, the section must identify and assign responsibili-
ties to relevant personnel associated with UAS operation, which may vary between organization
and operation, but could potentially include:
• Airport tenants providing UAS services,
• UAS PIC,
• UAS visual observers, and
• Other UAS-specific safety personnel and human resources.
3.3.3 Alerts and Notifications

An emergency plan’s alerts and notifications section addresses the needs for alerting those
whose safety is potentially impacted by the UAS operation. For a UAS emergency plan, the authors

Figure 11. Example of a UAS integration into emergency management communication plan.

must consider what UAS-specific warnings are relevant to their airport and its supported opera-
tions. Some considerations include:
• Purpose of the alert,
• Individuals to be notified by the alert,
• Mechanism for issuing alert and how individuals with special needs are accommodated,
• Addressing system failures with the alerting mechanism,
• Coordination of alerts across multiple jurisdictions (especially when considering off-airport
emergencies), and
• Pre-written alert messages and their variations.
3.3.4 Local Media Coordination

AC 150/5200-31C (FAA 2009) provides guidance regarding coordination with local media
in the event of an airport emergency to address the timely release of information relevant to
public safety, notification to impacted, and address any misinformation. This task is typically
delegated to a public information officer. In addressing UAS-related emergencies, much of
this plan remains consistent with the reporting of all other airport emergencies as defined by
the airport’s emergency plan.
One consideration for local media coordination on UAS emergencies is the handling of sensi-
tive and/or proprietary information. For instance, operation by a military or law enforcement
agency may wish to limit the details of information release to avoid inadvertent disclosure to the
nature of the operations being performed by the unmanned system. The terms of non-disclosure
agreements and other arrangements must also be considered.
A greater sensitivity exists when addressing UAS emergencies to the media. Misinformation
related to UAS operations has adversely harmed the UAS industry/operations several times in
the past decade. Therefore, it is critical that information related to a UAS emergency is delivered
in a timely manner to avoid excessive speculation with the utmost clarity.
A variety of communication modalities can be considered within the communication plan.
Direct interaction with media includes interviews, press releases, and press conferences. Addi-
tionally, release of information to the public and media through social media is becoming more
common. Social media provides one avenue for information release for public alerts and to
directly share statements from the airport and/or responding entities, which provides addi-
tional modalities of information dissemination in a world where communication modalities
are becoming increasingly varied.
3.3.5 Post-Emergency Reporting and Recovery Procedures

External reporting of aviation incidents and accidents is also required. Under Part 107,
FAA must be notified within 10 calendar days of an incident or accident that results in serious
injury/death to a person or damage to property (excluding the sUAS) so long as the repair
costs or fair-market cost of the total loss of property exceeds $500. Reporting is handled either
by phone with the operator’s local FAA Regional Operations Center, or via an online form
(FAA, n.d.-b).
UAS operated under a Section 333 Exemption and blanket COA have different reporting
requirements, which require using the COA online system. As per FAA Form 7711-1 (FAA,
n.d.-a), within 24 hours of an incident/accident, FAA must be notified via email and an online
form. Accidents/mishaps must be reported in the event that the incident/accident resulted in
a loss of life resulting from the UAS operation within 30 days of the accident, serious injury,

total unmanned aircraft loss, substantial aircraft damage, and damage to property other than
the UAS. Incidents must be reported if one of several in-flight system failures/emergencies
occurred: if the incident was an airborne collision with another aircraft, deviations from the
terms of the COA, ATC instructions, or other agreements; a fly away aircraft; or contingency
plan execution for lost link procedure.
Under Title 49 CFR § 830.549 and § 830.5, the UAS PIC must also report incidents and
accidents to NTSB. NTSB reporting requirements are separate and distinct from FAA reporting
requirements.
3.3.6 Emergency Planning Resources

Additional planning resources can be found in the following sources:
• Airport Emergency Planning Resources
– AC 150/5200-31C: Airport Emergency Plan (FAA, 2009)
– Airport Emergency Plan Checklist (FAA, n.d.-c)
– Airport Emergency Plan Template (New Hampshire DOT, n.d.)
– ACRP 04-19 Airport Emergency Planning Template: NIMS—Incident Command System
Compliance (project ending soon)
• UAS Incident/Accident Reporting Resources
– FAA FORM 7711-1 UAS COA—Blanket COA for any Operator issued a valid Section 333
Grant of Exemption (FAA, n.d-a)
– FAA Reporting an Accident (Part 107) (FAA, n.d.-b)
– 49 CFR §830.5 Immediate Notification (49 CFR § 830.5, 2017).

CHAPTER 4
Visual Risk Assessment Map

and Factors
This chapter serves as a tool for developing visual risk assessment maps for airport operators.
The method helps airport operators better understand and visualize geospatial risks that may
exist in the context of UAS operations. Furthermore, this guidance helps airports with assess-
ing risks as part of their risk management process. This chapter will describe the risk analy-
sis approach (Section 4.1) and characterize the specific risk factors (Section 4.2). Using this
approach and risk factors, Section 4.3 describes map elements and provides an example risk
map. This tool can be used by airport operators to generate their own specific risk maps and
improve risk management processes. The tool also helps provide a common framework for
discussing risk among entities, working with airports to manage and communicate risks.
4.1 Tools and Methods for Map Development

In this section, a method is described for map development using tools referred by FAA best
practices and mitigation tools. The fundamentals of risk mitigations are introduced, as well as
factors leading to risk area categorization, which will help airport operators identify risk areas
and mitigation strategies specific to their airports.
4.1.1 Development of Risk Factors

This section describes the approach to developing risk factors in the context of UAS opera-
tions for airports by defining key concepts such as risk matrix, factors, and management. This
includes a description of a method for augmenting the FAA SRM framework to incorporate
UAS-related risks, leveraging literature from defense UAS programs and recent developments
in commercial UAS testing and evaluation.
4.1.2 Defining Low-, Medium-, and High-Risk Areas

Risk is described by likelihood and severity of an adverse event. While risk exists on a con-
tinuum, risk management frameworks categorize risk into discrete levels that represent risk
management regimes. Risk level is determined on a case-by-case basis through an analysis of a
scenario. FAA has well-established risk management criteria to determine the level of risk for
manned flight, which is described herein. However, for UAS, risk management criteria are
currently less understood due to the relatively small amount of empirical evidence, as well as
the dynamically changing nature of UAS operations as they are phased into the NAS, pro-
liferate in number, advance in technology, and find new use-cases. This section identifies some
common UAS risk criteria based on available information.
Figure 12 shows FAA’s safety risk management matrix (FAA, 2013a) as a first consideration.
As seen in the matrix, risk can be visualized as a table with columns that describe gradations of
34

Visual Risk Assessment Map and Factors 35
Figure 12. FAA safety risk management matrix (FAA 2013a).
severity, and rows of likelihood. The grades of “low,” “medium,” and “high” are used to divide
risk into three categories that trigger certain risk acceptance practices.
Definitions of likelihood of occurrence and severity of consequences can be observed from
FAA’s Safety Risk Management handbook (FAA, 2013b) as shown in Table 8. These terms can
be used to support a framework for the development of a risk map.
In addition to likelihood, it is also important to understand the severity of risks. The inter
play between likelihood and severity constitute the total risk that is experienced by the UAS
user and airport. Severity levels and definitions are provided in Table 9.
Defining accurate risk levels is important for cost-effective accident prevention for opera-
tors and airports alike. The levels describe necessary approvals and approach to risk reduction
and mitigation. System safety requirements must be consistent with other program require-
ments. Realistically, a certain degree of safety risk must be universally accepted to successfully
operate UAS.
According to FAA Order 8040.4B (FAA, 2017), the term hazard is defined as a “condition
that could foreseeably cause or contribute to an aircraft accident.” UAS operations may occur
within an existing hazardous environment or cause a hazard for other operations. A single
hazard may not necessarily cause an accident, but it can increase the likelihood and severity of
an accident. Depending on the unique circumstances at each airport and for each operation,
Table 8. FAA risk management criteria likelihood definitions

(FAA, 2013b).
Likelihood Definition
Qualitative: Anticipated to occur one or more times during the entire

Probable system/operational life of an item.
Quantitative: Probability of occurrence per operational hour is greater than 1 × 10-5
Qualitative: Unlikely to occur to each item during its total life. May occur several
times in the life of an entire system or fleet.
Remote
Quantitative: Probability of occurrence per operational hour is less than 1 × 10-5, but
greater than 1 × 10-7
Qualitative: Not anticipated to occur to each item during its total life. May occur a
Extremely few times in the life of an entire system or fleet.
Remote Quantitative: Probability of occurrence per operational hour is less than 1 × 10-7 but
greater than 1 × 10-9
Qualitative: So unlikely that it is not anticipated to occur during the entire

Extremely
operational life of an entire system or fleet.
Improbable
Quantitative: Probability of occurrence per operational hour is less than 1 × 10-9

Table 9. FAA risk management criteria severity definitions.
Severity Definition
Catastrophic Results in multiple fatalities and/or loss of the system
Reduces the capability of the system or operator ability to cope with adverse conditions
to the extent that there would be:
Large reduction in safety margin or functional capability
Hazardous Crew physical distress/excessive workload such that operators cannot be relied
upon to perform required tasks accurately or completely
Serious or fatal injury to small number of occupants of aircraft (except operators)
Fatal injury to ground personnel and/or general public
Reduces the capability of the system or operator ability to cope with adverse operating
conditions to the extent that there would be
Significant reduction in safety margin or functional capability
Significant increase in operator workload
Major
Conditions impairing operator efficiency or creating significant discomfort
Physical distress to occupants of aircraft (except operator) including injuries
Major occupational illness and/or major environmental damage, and/or major
property damage
Does not significantly reduce system safety. Actions required by operators are well within
their capabilities. Include:
Slight reduction in safety margin or functional capabilities
Minor Slight increase in workload such as routine flight plan changes
Some physical discomfort to occupants or aircraft (except operators)
Minor occupational illness and/or minor environmental damage, and/or minor
property damage
No Safety
Has no effect on safety
Effect
the defined risk may rank differently between low, medium, and high. Visual risk maps help
understand hazards spatially, but not all hazards are easily represented visually. This chapter
provides visual risk maps and describes hazards that are not easily visualized which can be used
to define risk levels for specific scenarios.
Considering the FAA Risk Management Framework and literature on UAS risks, guidance
for assessing high (Figure 13), medium (Figure 14), and low (Figure 15) levels is described here.
They are provided as examples for how risk could be assessed. Because each unique circumstance
at an airport will alter the risk assessments, these should not be considered blanket definitions,
but rather example guidelines. These figures include examples of risk criteria and scenarios that
characterize high, medium, and low risk. The example risk criteria and scenarios were identified
based on an analysis conducted by Bard College Center for the Study of the Drone on UAS inci-
dent reports (Gettinger and Michel, 2015). The Bard analysis considers 921 incidents involving
UAS from December 2013 to September 2015, and identifies common UAS sightings and close
encounters.
4.2 Risk Factors

Risk factors can stem from system, operational, and environmental conditions. UAS opera-
tions around airports must consider the same risks as manned aircraft. New factors specific
to UAS are defined in this section. While these factors are most directly applicable to UAS

Figure 13. High-risk level definition based on FAA Order 8040.4B. Four examples of common risk criteria
are given based on research by Bard College Center for the Study of the Drone on UAS incident reports.
These criteria demonstrate when a scenario may be considered high risk (Gettinger and Michel, 2015).
Figure 14. Medium-risk level definition based on FAA Order

8040.4B. Two examples of common risk criteria are given based
on research by Bard College Center for the Study of the Drone
on UAS incident reports. These criteria demonstrate when a
scenario may be considered medium risk (Gettinger and
Michel, 2015).

Figure 15. Low-risk level definition based on FAA

Order 8040.4B. Two examples of common risk criteria
are given based on research by Bard College Center
for the Study of the Drone on UAS incident reports.
These criteria demonstrate when a scenario may be
considered low risk (Gettinger and Michel, 2015).
operators, it is important for an airport operations department/manager to be familiar with

them, especially as they relate to the management of UAS operations within the vicinity of
existing manned aircraft around an airport. Table 10 describes risk factor definitions and
guidance documents, which are based largely on information from the FAA Risk Management
Handbook 8083-2, FAA Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC),
14 CFR Part 77, Part 91, and Part 107; AC 60-22; and AC 150/5300-13A.
4.2.1 Operational
Recognizing the risks associated with UAS operations near airports, FAA has developed spe-
cific guidance based on airspace class and proximity to airports. Inside controlled airspace, spe-
cial permission must be acquired via waiver from FAA. More than 90% of airports in the United
States have no control tower (Air Safety Institute, 2017).
Under Part 107, UAS operators are not required to coordinate operations with or give notice
to airports in Class G (uncontrolled) airspace. Part 101-E recreational (i.e., Model Aircraft) users
are only required to notify the airport and ATC (if a tower is present). Part 107 establishes a
general rule for sUAS to avoid interference with manned aircraft but does not include a provi-
sion recommending communication between aircraft, manned or unmanned, when approaching
or departing from an uncontrolled airport. The FAA LAANC program is an automated process
to issue airspace authorizations in near real-time for operations in controlled airspace. System
integrity and capability are critical in maintaining navigation, separation, and geospatial restric-
tions of UAS operations. Compromised system integrity could lead to hazardous risks, such as
collision with a manned aircraft or people on the ground. UAS airworthiness and system integ-
rity must constantly be checked and repaired for any operation to take place safely.
Operational factors can be challenging to depict geospatially, as they often relate to specific
technology that is either onboard the vehicle or infrastructure provided by the airport and ATC.

Table 10. Risk factor definitions by category.
Category Risk Factor Definition Data Sources
Operational Part 77: Standards and

Factors Separation may be achieved by reserving notification requirements for
Separation
airspace, IFR/VFR objects affecting navigable
airspace
Aircraft Aircraft complies with weight, payload,

Part 107
Capability and airworthiness requirements
Operation is conducted in VLOS or

Line of Sight extended/BVLOS with proper waivers or Part 107
exemptions
System and operations comply using

System geofencing or waypoint navigation to
AC 60-22
Integrity avoid airspace and demonstrate a secure
operational reliability
Tracking and ID systems can be ground-

Tracking and AC 150/5300-13A: Airport
based (e.g., radar) or part of the UAS
Identification Design Criteria
(e.g., lighting or ADS-B)
Operator PIC complies to Aeronautical Decision

AC 60-22
Capability Making best practices
Pilot in PIC complies with airport operations and

Coordination Part 107;
Command recognizes critical pathways (e.g., runway
with Airports Part 77; AC 150/5300-13A
approach and departure paths) to avoid
Operator must hold a remote pilot airman

Operator
certificate and demonstrate proficiency in Part 107
Aptitude
operations
Weather conditions during operations are

dealt with in a reasonable manner;
Weather PIC must react accordingly to weather AC 60-22; Part 91
forecasts and communicate with airports
under conditions
Environment Nearby terrain feature that influences

Terrain
flight plan (e.g., spot elevation, body of AC 60-22
Feature
water, or man-made road)
Nearby buildings or sites; special

Local AC 60-22; AC 150/5300-
permissions required when performing
Infrastructure 13A
on-site operations within airports
Other External factors not present during flight

AC 60-22
Hazards plan or initial operation (e.g., TFR)
These capabilities can reduce the risks generated by certain UAS operations based on consid-
erations such as range and performance of communications, perception systems, and aircraft
(e.g., in a lost link scenario).
4.2.2 Pilot in Command

PIC risk factors are described in AC 60-22, Part 107, and Part 77. These include safe/efficient
use, preservation of navigable airspace, capability, coordination, and aptitude. As the person in
control of the UAS, the PIC must adhere to the Aeronautical Decision Making best practices
(FAA 2017a). The PIC is directly responsible for maintaining the flight path of the UAS and
coordinating with airports before and during operations. The PIC must also coordinate with a

designated visual observer when conducting certain operations. A PIC operating under Part 107
must maintain a remote pilot airman certificate to demonstrate that they are a competent and
knowledgeable pilot. Additional training may be appropriate based on the specific operation.
In its current state, risk levels for PIC are challenging to illustrate in a Geospatial Risk Map as it
directly relates to the PIC’s aptitude and merit.
4.2.3 Environment
An analysis and review of several FAA aviation documents, most notably AC 60-22, AC 150/
5300-13A, and Part 91 revealed many potential environmental factors to include on the UAS
Risk Map. A prominent environmental risk factor is weather, which is a dynamic and localized
factor that can quickly change operating risks in specific areas. High winds, precipitation, or
icing conditions may be cause to alter or cease UAS operations or employ mitigation strate-
gies. Concerns surrounding weather focus on both universal risks, such as precipitation or
high barometric pressure, as well as those faced by only some airports, like coastal fog or strong
cross winds.
A secondary environmental risk that can be visualized on a risk map is local infrastructure.
Runways and taxiways within airports prove to be high-risk areas, especially if UAS operations
occur concurrently with manned aircraft operations. Though runway and taxiway locations
differ by airport, a generalized map will be able to denote these risks.
Other hazards that are difficult to include in a generalized risk map, but still present a risk to
UAS operations, include undetectable terrain and wildlife strikes. Both are difficult to represent
on a static map but must be considered when implementing UAS operations. Wildlife risk can
be marked on a map by denoting any open land surrounding an airport where birds or other
animals may congregate.
4.3 Map Elements and Risk Management

A risk map captures the geospatial location of risk features (see Section 4.2) that are in prox-
imity to an airport and drive risk for UAS operations. This section demonstrates how the risk
factors translate into elements of a risk map. A sample risk map is developed for Pittsburgh
International Airport (PIT) as an example of how to apply the concepts in this guidance.
4.3.1 Map Elements

The risk factors discussed in Section 4.2 are organized into three categories: operational, PIC,
and environmental. Both operational and PIC risk factors can vary on a case-by-case basis, and
do not lend themselves readily to geospatial representation. Environmental factors are more
readily visualized geospatially. Environmental factors serve as the base layer for a visual risk map,
and operational and PIC factors augment that base layer on a case-by-case basis.
PIT is used as an example to show how to identify and characterize potential risks. FAA
represents the risk of UAS to ATC and facilities through UAS facility maps. The UAS facility
map for PIT (Figure 16) indicates altitudes below which Part 107 UAS airspace authoriza-
tion approvals require no further coordination with ATC. UAS operations above UAS facility
map altitudes may still be permissible if risks can be addressed (e.g., through a waiver or COA
approved by FAA). ATC and FAA are important stakeholders in UAS operations, but this docu-
ment focuses on the perspective of an airport operator, whose concerns differ from ATC. For
example, UAS facility maps are relatively coarse grids (about 1 minute of latitude by 1 minute
of longitude, or 1 square mile), which is insufficient spatial resolution to appreciate some of
the risks to airport facilities.

Figure 16. UAS facility map for PIT. Box indicates

zoomed in area for the risk map provided in Figure 18.
Grid cell numbers indicate maximum ceiling of UAS
operations permissible without further coordination
with ATC.
Environmental risk factors include weather, terrain features, infrastructure, and other hazards:
• Airport operators can track geospatial weather risk through weather data, such as the NextGen
Weather Processor data. Wind, precipitation, and icing forecasts are provided by National
Weather Service Aviation Digital Data Service (www.aviationweather.gov). Icing can be
visualized on NCAR’s experimental online tool (http://www.rap.ucar.edu/icing/ip), shown
in Figure 17. To the team’s knowledge, no UAS-specific thresholds have been set for evalu-
ating risk based on weather parameters. Weather may increase the likelihood of a UAS inci-
dent, due to features such as smaller size and smaller control surfaces, but UAS are also likely
to carry less severity than manned craft.
• Terrain features and infrastructure hazards are typically static, such as towers, parking lots,
and training facilities. UAS may pose a threat to personal injury or property damage from colli-
sion due to loss of control, wind gusts, mechanical failure, or other unforeseen circumstances.
The major concerns for airport operators often occur in the immediate vicinity of the airport,
where there are potential impacts to airport property, operations, or users. To help visualize air-
port-specific considerations for assessing UAS risks near an airport, a sample risk map of PIT is
shown in Figure 18. This map provides an overlay of the airport, highlighting areas of increased
risk, especially aircraft routes, surface hazards, and critical infrastructure. These risk areas are
three-dimensional airspace volumes by nature. Top and side views help show the horizontal and
vertical dimensions of these risks. Aircraft routes are clearly an area of higher risk due to con-
cerns with separation, and these areas may vary depending on which runways are active. Only
a single example runway operation configuration is shown, and several other configurations
exist. Surface hazards, especially critical infrastructure like VORTAC towers, not only pose risk
to the UAS, but also airport operations should a UAS disable certain functionality. Weather is an

Figure 17. Probability of icing based on altitude and time.
Figure 18. Sample risk map of PIT, Class B airspace, with top and side
views. All UAS operations would be high risk in this area without a
waiver or exemption. Specific geolocated features that further increase
risk are identified, including surface hazards, critical infrastructure,
and areas over people. It is possible to reduce the risk of a specific UAS
operation to low risk (e.g., through a waiver or authorization that
ensures a certain level of safety performance and mitigation measures).

example of a time-varying factor that heavily influences risks and cannot be provided in a static
map. Performance of UAS, in particular small UAS/UAV, typically degrades rapidly with higher
winds, precipitation, and in icing conditions, and can result in UAs being carried a significant
distance. Weather conditions are an important layer of a risk map and risk evaluation.
4.3.2 Risk Management

These maps do not show certain operational and PIC factors that impact risk on a case-by-
case basis. A flow chart in Figure 19 can be used to better understand these conditions. For
example, if a UAS operation is being conducted in Class B airspace, it will require an airspace
waiver or airspace authorization that addresses important risk reduction measures, such as how
the UAS will coordinate with the airport and ATC.
In augmenting the FAA Risk Management Framework (FAA, 2013b), it must be noted that
sufficient data may not exist to clearly define the likelihood or severity of an adverse event, which
is why Figure 18 only displays clear, high-risk areas (red). Until such data is collected, qualitative
guidance on what criteria triggers other levels of risk is provided. In some cases, there is strong
supporting documentation and data sources that describe how to evaluate risk. In other cases,
more research and data is needed, and this framework may need to evolve as more information
becomes available. Table 11 provides a summary of the relevant risk factors and the potential
sources for quantitative data for these factors.
Figure 19. Flow chart describing policy and regulatory considerations for risk
identification, reduction, and mitigation. Operations that are not inherently low
risk may require case-by-case examination to evaluate potential risks to airports.
Actions can be taken to systemically reduce risk of UAS operations around
certain airports.

Table 11. Risk factors categorized by likelihood and severity

of adverse events.
Risk Guidance
Category Risk Factor Risk Evaluation Guidance
Sources
Separation mostly relates to likelihood of an

adverse event. It can be categorized into:
Reserving airspace (e.g., TFR) = Extremely
Remote
Separation IFR (e.g., ADS-B equipped) UASFM
UAS flight corridors VFR (e.g., BNSF UAS
corridors)
Coordination with ATC (relationship between
UAS operator and facility)
Weight mostly relates to the severity of an adverse

event. It can be categorized into:
<250 grams = No Safety Impact
<55 lbs. = Minor Part 107, FAA
>55 lbs. = Major Micro UAS
Aircraft
Aviation
Capability Airworthiness mostly relates to likelihood of an Rulemaking
adverse event. It can be categorized into: Committee
Extremely Remote
Remote
Operational Probable
Factor
Mostly relates to likelihood of an adverse event. It
can be categorized into:
Part 91, General
Equipment certificate requirement = Extremely
Sensor Fidelity Operating and
Remote
Flight Rules
Sensor output reliability threshold, lifespan, and
accuracy
System
Mitigation measures Part 77
Integrity
Higher-capability systems will result in lower
likelihood of adverse events. For example, ADS-B
equipped UAS can improve ability to separate,
thus reducing risk. Systems and policy are still in
development, but specific technologies can be FAA UAS
categorized in a way that enables qualitative Remote ID and
Tracking and
assessment of likelihood, for example: Tracking Aviation
Identification
Rulemaking
High capability system (e.g., ADS-B or lighting) is
Committee
most important when the application is extremely
remote
Low capability system (e.g., tail number, no
electronic broadcast) = Increase probability
Operator
Level of experience and flight knowledge AC 60-22
Capability
Pilot in Coordination Complies with CFR for notifying airports during Part 107;
Command with Airports operations Part 77
Operator Level of experience and aptitude for flight

Part 107
Aptitude knowledge
Weather factors such as precipitation, humidity,

Weather AC 60-22
visibility, and barometric pressure
Terrain Visual features that affect flight operations based

GIS maps
Feature on vicinity of airport
Environment
Local Visual features that affect flight operations based AC 150/5300-
Infrastructure on vicinity of airport 13A
External factors that may affect operations such as Local broadcasts

Other Hazards
wildlife or weather anomalies and warnings

CHAPTER 5
Engagement and
Communication Tools
This chapter describes proactive engagement and communications tools that airport opera-
tors and managers can consider when engaging with recreational UAS remote pilot/operators.
The purpose of this chapter is to familiarize airport operators and managers with the UAS-
specific tools currently available to be leveraged for engagement and communication purposes.
The clear target audience for this research is airports. However, beyond airports, there are
large collections of UAS stakeholders that airports should be aware of in order to appropriately
tailor their outreach methods. Table 12 displays the UAS stakeholder categories that will be
discussed in this guidance document.
5.1 Websites
Websites provide an online multimedia platform for individuals, groups, and organizations
to host, communicate, as well as collect information or materials for various purposes and func-
tions, including:
• Information sharing, including updates and archives

• Information and/or document hosting (such as directories, databases, and downloadable
files)
• Peer-to-peer exchange platforms, interaction, and user forums
• Business transactions of products or services (including promotion and marketing)
To evaluate the efficacy of using a website as a UAS communication and engagement mech-
anism, Table 13 summarizes the benefits and challenges of using this tool. In addition to the
resources provided above, the website also provides a UAS Toolkit (ICAO, 2018), which serves
as a guide to assist its member states to develop their individual UAS guidance, regulations, and
to provide them the guidance necessary to operate UAS within their respective airspace in a safe
and efficient manner. The website also incorporates existing UAS regulations from around the
world as a guide to new member states venturing into this field. This provides a platform for
the regulatory environment on global integration of UAS around the world.
As summarized in Table 13, websites are highly accessible. Websites enable groups and orga-
nizations to disperse information quickly, as well as control specific information they may want
to share with different stakeholders.
From a website host’s standpoint, it may require dedicated personnel and capacity to ensure
the presented information and materials remain relevant with ongoing support and real-time
updates. As a result, one of the risks of relying on websites as a communication tool is consistency
45

Table 12. List of categories of UAS stakeholders.
AIRPORT TYPES INDUSTRY UAS OPERATORS
Towered and non- UAS manufacturers Civil operators (Part 107,

towered airports COA with Section 333
Direct service providers
Exemption, SAC)
General aviation and (external; “UAS as a
commercial airports service”) Governmental (Public;
including law
Joint use airports Indirect service providers
enforcement, fire
(e.g., insurance claims services, and other civic
inspection, cargo function)
delivery, and inspection),
which include operations Commercial (service
conducted by an providers and internal
organization for their use)
own benefit or for the
Education and
benefit of their
training UAS remote
stakeholders
pilots/operators
Support services (e.g.,
Recreational education
maintenance, logistics,
(Part 101/Section 336)
insurance coverage)
Clubs and other
Manned aviation
organized recreational
(commercial and civil
users such as the Drone
pilots and operators)
Racing League
ATC/Operations
Construction
ASSOCIATIONS / PROFESSIONAL
REGULATORS / LAW MAKERS
ORGANIZATIONS
CBOs Federal
Advocacy State
Professional (e.g., AUVSI) Local (county, city, town, tribal)
of information. In this case, certain functions of websites may fare more effectively than others,
such as blogs, peer-to-peer exchange platforms, and user forums, which allow informal conver-
sations to take place among website users.
For airport operators, websites can be effective communication tools in general, as most U.S.
airports already have their official websites developed. Larger airports may have more capacity
than smaller, regional airports to operate and keep their websites up to date, and therefore their
websites may have more effective usability and reliability for the latest available information. At
the same time, all airports should have the capacity to link information to other organizations’
websites that have more expertise and focus on UAS-related information, and therefore infor-
mation should still be communicated.
5.2 Social Media

Similar to websites, social media provides various online platforms and approaches to reach
stakeholders. Some prominent social media platforms include LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter,
YouTube, Instagram, SnapChat, and Reddit. Table 14 provides a summary of the benefits and
challenges of social media as an engagement and outreach tool.

Engagement and Communication Tools 47
Table 13. Summary of benefits and challenges of websites.
WEBSITE/PAGE
EXAMPLES BENEFITS CHALLENGES
FUNCTION
Information, Regulation-oriented, Ability to disseminate Consistency and

documentation, government agencies: information for reliability of
multimedia stakeholders “on the information and
FAA: www.faa.gov/uas/
hosting and go” and/or real-time documents
curation International Civil updates
Legitimacy of
Aviation Organization
Calendar, Serving as a one-stop website and
(ICAO): www.icao.int/
Schedule portal for information being
National Association of information and communicated;
Directories resources for wiki pages,
State Aviation Officials:
(point of contact peer review is not
www.nasao.org/
identification) Allowing quick access confirmed
Advocacy groups: to materials
Databases Requiring regular
Association for Providing direct maintenance to
Data collection, Unmanned Vehicle access and
information keep information
Systems International connection with relevant and
submission (AUVSI): other UAS updated
News, updates www.auvsi.net/home stakeholders through
(active, non- blogs and peer- Requiring
Academy of Model exchange forums dedicated capacity
active, level of Aeronautics (AMA):
activity) to ensure timely
www.modelaircraft.org/ Enabling flexibility in responses for
Peer-to-peer level of detail of information
R/C Airplane World: information; ability to
sharing www.rc-airplane- submission pages
cater to specific, or contact forms
Wikis world.com/ targeted audience
UAS users (including Ensuring the
Blogs Providing appropriate
manufacturers or sellers, or
opportunities for /useful
Applications service offers):
direct engagement information or
(apps) with UAS
Dronethusiast: data are being
User forums www.dronethusiast.com/ stakeholders collected
Sensefly (blog): Ability to monitor Technology bugs
waypoint.sensefly.com/ audience traffic for that may cause
better understanding the apps to crash
UAV Expert News: of what they are
www.uavexpertnews.com/ or not display
looking for information
Commercial UAV News: Beneficial for properly
www.expouav.com/news addressing specific
/latest/ issues, shared
experience among
stakeholders
Social media platforms allow for targeted, real-time stakeholder outreach. These platforms
offer the targeted audience various ways to react to the information being shared as well, such as
the use of the “Like” button, comment box, and sharing functions. Overall, for airports, social
media platforms can be resourceful as an informal way to reach out to UAS stakeholders, but in
a creative manner that perhaps would keep them more engaged. These social media platforms
can also help spread information quickly through social media users themselves. Larger airports
may have more effective use of social media, as these platforms require dedicated resources and
personnel for upkeep.
5.3 In-Person Information Sessions

Information sessions represent a method commonly used to present specific information
to an affected population (e.g., a regulatory body presenting the details of a proposed regula-
tory change to a user population). Sessions can be conducted independently, as a standalone

Table 14. Summary of benefits and challenges of social media

as an engagement and outreach tool.
SOCIAL MEDIA
CATEGORY
SOCIAL senseFLY: Ability to quickly share Requires users to

NETWORKING www.facebook.com/sen information and reach new subscribe or “follow”
seFlyDrones/ audience a service
AOPA: Offering more interactive Dependent on host
https://twitter.com/AO platforms to engage and organization/group to
PA communicate with targeted upkeep information
audience
Utilizing the engaged audience
to help spread communication
MULTIMEDIA YouTube Ability to provide creative Requiring resources

SHARING mediums to share information and capacity for
AMA model aircraft:
developing creative
www.youtube.com/mod
multimedia products
elaircraft
for sharing
Drone Cast:
https://www.instagram.
com/dronecast/
function hosted by the presenter, or as an element of a larger event (e.g., conference or sympo-
sium). Examples include briefings and presentations, seminars, webinars, town hall meetings,
or community roundtables. Some examples of UAS-related information sessions include:
• San Diego sUAS FAA Safety Team, sUAS (DRONE) Airspace Notification Authorizations and
Waivers Updates (https://www.faasafety.gov/SPANS/event_details.aspx?eid=80661&caller=/
SPANS/events/EventList.aspx)
• FAA (FAA TV), UAS Integration Pilot Program Webinar (https://www.faa.gov/tv/
?mediaId=1713)
• Mohawk Valley Community College’s Center for Corporate & Community Education and
the STEM Center and SkyOp, LLC, Drone/Unmanned Aerial Systems Training Information
Session (https://www.skyop.com/drone-training-solutions/college-and-higher-education/)
5.4 Free Education/Training

Examples of free training/education include workshops or courses, such as massive online
open courses (MOOC) or computer-based training featuring self-paced learning modules. These
options may feature reduced interaction, information exchange, or assessment and require less
time commitment and/or interaction than paid versions, for both instructors and students. For
example, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University hosts a UAS MOOC for participants from a
variety of backgrounds including recreational UAS users, potential commercial users, and those
potentially impacted by UAS operations to become acquainted with the UAS operations and
industry standards. It also serves as a forum for participants to ask questions or voice concerns
regarding the certification and integration challenges of the industry. Some examples of UAS-
related free education/training sessions include:
• FAA Safety Team, ALC-451: Part 107 small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) (https://
www.faasafety.gov/gslac/ALC/course_content.aspx?cID=451&sID=726&crID=1437198)

• Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University—Worldwide, Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems

(sUAS)—Key Concepts for New Users [MOOC] (https://www.canvas.net/browse/erau/
courses/small-unmanned-aircraft)
• University of Bath, From State Control to Remote Control: Warfare in the 21st Century [MOOC]
(https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/remote-control-warfare)
5.5 Paid Education/Training

Examples include workshops and seminars (with evaluation), individual courses, and certifi-
cate, workforce/professional development, or higher-learning degree programs (e.g., associate,
bachelor, master, or doctorate). The level of interaction among peers (students), instructors, and
other parties is typically higher than free versions. Additionally, the programming may be sub-
ject to third-party endorsement and auditing (e.g., accreditation and review) and may require
completion of pre-requisite and/or co-requisite, such as admission criteria, materials purchase
(textbooks), and course sequencing. Further programming may feature evaluation of unique
knowledge, skills, and/or abilities. Some examples of paid education/training sessions include:
• ASSOCIATES DEGREE PROGRAMS
– Cochise Community College, Associate of Applied Sciences-Unmanned Aircraft Systems
and Operations (https://www.cochise.edu/cfiles/files/catalog/web/2015-2016%20Catalog/
unmanned-aircraft-systems-and-operations---associate-of-applied-science-major-code---
uas.htm)
– Sinclair Community College, Associate of Applied Science-Unmanned Aerial Systems (http://
www.sinclair.edu/program/params/programCode/UAS-S-AAS/)
– Hinds Community College, Associates of Applied Science-UAS concentration (https://
www.hindscc.edu/programs-of-study/career-and-technical-programs/Transportation-and-
Logistics/Aviation/unmanned-aircraft-systems-program#gsc.tab=0)
• BACHELORS DEGREE PROGRAMS
– Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, BS in UAS Science (https://erau.edu/degrees/
bachelor/unmanned-aircraft-systems-science/)
– Indiana State University, BS in Unmanned Systems (https://www.indstate.edu/academics/
undergraduate/majors/unmanned-systems)
– Liberty University, BS in Aeronautics with UAS Cognate (https://www.liberty.edu/academics/
aeronautics/index.cfm?PID=12602)
– Kansas State Polytechnic, Bachelor’s in Unmanned Aircraft Systems (https://polytechnic.
k-state.edu/aviation/uas/curriculum.html)
– University of North Dakota, BS in Aeronautics with a Major in Unmanned Aircraft
System Operations (http://aviation.und.edu/prospective-students/undergraduate/uas-
operations.aspx)
• GRADUATE DEGREE PROGRAMS
– Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, MS in Unmanned Systems (https://erau.edu/
degrees/master/unmanned-systems/)
– Oklahoma State University, MS in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering with UAS Option
(https://unmanned.okstate.edu/node/12)
– University of North Carolina Wilmington, MS in Computer Science and Information Systems
(https://csb.uncw.edu/MSCSIS/advancedstudy/mscsis-unmanned-aerial-vehicles.html)
• PROFESSIONAL TRAINING
– Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Small UAS Professional Program (https://proed.
erau.edu/programs/small-unmanned-aircraft-systems/)

– West Valley College, UAS Technology Program (http://westvalley.edu/academics/applied_

arts_sciences/aviation/index.html)
– Unmanned Safety Institute, Professional Remote Operator Certification (https://
www.unmannedsafetyinstitute.org/pro/)
5.6 Conferences and Symposiums

Conferences and symposiums represent scheduled programming that occurs over a period
of hours to days, among a population focused on a common unifying theme (e.g., professional,
industry, or academic). They typically feature distribution of related multimedia material,
including images, videos, live-stream, proceedings, and printed material. Engagement at
conferences and symposiums occurs through interpersonal exchange among attendees,
hosts, presenters, and sponsors, at displays/booths, social networking events, workshops, and
briefings/presentations. Some examples of conferences and symposiums include:
• Conferences
– AUVSI, XPonential Conference (http://www.xponential.org/xponential2018/public/
enter.aspx)
– Commercial UAV Expo (https://www.expouav.com/welcome-drone-world-expo-
constituents/)
– International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (http://www.icuas.com/)
– Small Unmanned Systems Business Expo (http://susbexpo.com/)
• Symposiums
– FAA UAS Symposium (https://www.auvsi.org/events/faa-uas-symposium-2019)
– International Civil Aviation Organization, UAS Industry Symposium (https://www.icao.int/
meetings/UAS2017/Pages/default.aspx)
– UAS West Symposium (http://www.uaswest.com/)
5.7 Documentation
The exchange of documentation provides the opportunity to share information to a desired
audience through materials that can be distributed using websites or through direct exchange
(physical or digital) with a target audience of individuals or groups. Unlike websites, documents
are appropriate for information that is relatively static and needs to be conveyed with an appro-
priate level of authority. Table 15 provides a summary of benefits and challenges of using
documents as an engagement and outreach tool.
A variety of document types can be used for stakeholder engagement. As the table demon-
strates, each has its own strengths and weaknesses regarding their efficacy in engagement with the
stakeholder communities that an organization seeks to engage with. Reports, research papers, and
peer-reviewed articles provide a means of conveying more detailed knowledge to the audience,
and provide a citable source that can be referenced. Regulations and policies document official
requirements, guidelines, and required practices to the stakeholder community. Briefings, pre-
sentations, and press releases can be shared as documents to provide access to a wider community
regarding information that the organization wishes to share in response to some event or public
issue, and represent a formal public statement from the organization. Magazines and newsletters
provide more accessible knowledge and information than reports, research papers, and peer-
reviewed articles, and provide opportunities to share community information, regulation and
policy updates, best practices, and public service advertisements to the stakeholder community.
Manuals and guidebooks allow an organization to convey guidance regarding procedures and

Table 15. Summary of benefits and challenges of documentation

outreach tool.
DOCUMENTATION
CATEGORY
REPORTS Unmanned Systems in Permits distribution of Generally written for

Homeland Security knowledge to target members of the
(DHS, 2015-a) audience community and less
accessible to outside
FAA - MicroUAS Provides a citable and
parties
Aviation Rulemaking authoritative source for
Committee Final Report information conveyed
Aerial Drones Provide
Rail Safety from the Sky
POLICIES AND Title 14 CFR Part 107 Establishes clear Documents can be
REGULATIONS (U.S. Government guidelines on what is and inaccessible to new
Publishing Office, n.d.-b) is not permissible within entrants into a
a jurisdiction, system, or community
Memorandum:
organization.
Educational Use of Establishes limits and
Unmanned Aircraft Provides authoritative expected practices, but
Systems (UAS) (FAA, reference provides limited guidance
2016-b) on best practices
RESEARCH/PEER- NASA UAS Traffic Conveys technical For the UAS

REVIEWED Management Research knowledge and research community, end-users
ARTICLES Documents Website to an audience. such as commercial
(NASA, n.d.) operators and
Peer review establishes a
recreational UAS users
AIAA Aerospace metric of quality upon
are less likely to engage
Research Central (AIAA, the document
with research articles
n.d.-c)
Timescale of peer review
process makes
information lag behind
technological advances
BRIEFINGS/ AIAA Public Policy Briefings document Briefings are typically

PRESENTATIONS/ Speeches and Testimony official statements from tailored to the attended
PRESS RELEASES (AIAA, n.d.-d) organizations regarding a audience and may be less
topic of stakeholder accessible to wider
FAA UAS Test Site interest audiences
Designation (Cifuentes,
2014) Presentations provide Presentation slides and
access to information similar materials lack the
AAAE Press Releases presented to spoken information
(AAAE, n.d.-b). stakeholders for those conveyed in the actual
unable to attend presentation
presentation
Reach of press release is
Press releases provide variable based on interest
news media and the of media, and less often
community with the passively reviewed by
organization’s statement stakeholder community
on events or activities
relevant to the
stakeholder community
MAGAZINES AND AUVSI Unmanned Convey information Engagement limited to

NEWSLETTERS Systems Magazine accessible to its target subscriber population
(AUVSI, n.d.-c) stakeholder community
Academy of Model Subscribers are typically
Aeronautics (AMA) seeking information
Today News Letter regarding the subjects
(AMA, n.d.-b) covered
(continued on next page)

DOCUMENTATION
CATEGORY
TECHNICAL FAA Interpretation of Provide clear Engagement limited to

MANUALS AND the Special Rule for instructions and those engaging in
GUIDEBOOKS Model Aircraft (FAA, guidance regarding utilizing the materials,
2014) procedures, safety and does not engage with
guidelines, best practices, a wider audience
ACRP Report 144:
and suitable knowledge
Unmanned Aircraft
Systems (UAS) at
Airports: A Primer
(Neubauer et al., 2015)
TEXTBOOKS / Knowledge Test Study Provide clear and well- Costs of materials can
STUDY GUIDES / Guide (FAA, 2016-g) organized learning limit reach of material
WORKBOOKS materials to stakeholder for engagement.
Small Unmanned
community
Aircraft Systems Guide Tailored to specific
(Terwilliger et al., 2017) Supports efforts for members of stakeholder
training and certification community with limited
wider reach
FACT / Operations of Small Low development costs While summarizing key

INFORMATION Unmanned Aerial to produce information, they are not
SHEETS Systems in the United an authoritative source
Convey key information
States National Airspace
with high accessibility to Costs for distribution of
System (AMA, n.d.-c)
stakeholder members physical materials
How to Label your
Drone (FAA, n.d.-a)
best practices for functions within the stakeholder community targeted to members’ roles,
responsibilities, and interests. Textbooks, study guides, and workbooks provide members of
the stakeholder community with authoritative references for preparation for certification and
general training. Finally, information and fact sheets provide a concise mechanism for conveying
accessible and pertinent information to the community.
5.8 Community Partnerships/Affiliations

In addition to the previously described UAS-specific communication methods, a range of
collaborative efforts, including working groups, partnerships, and coalitions, has emerged as a
result of the dispersed nature of UAS regulation and heretofore limited availability of guidance
for independent users. Collaborations among UAS users serve distinct purposes, depending on
the specific participants.
In addition to belonging to the categories indicated in Table 12, including airports, govern-
ment agencies, and professional UAS remote pilots/operators or service providers, users may
affiliate with the following, more specific categories:
• Academic/Institutional: conducting research and education activities at universities, colleges,
and other institutions;
• Environmental: weather monitoring, conservation and wildlife, and/or disaster recovery
and relief;
• Entertainment: supplementing attendee experience, and/or supporting major sports, music,
theater, and other entertainment events (such as security monitoring and crowd control);

• Consumer Products and Services: for furthering specific commercial uses, such as consumer
product delivery or tracking;
• Communications: supporting journalistic endeavors of news and media organizations, including
newspapers, television channels, and broadcasting companies;
• Insurance/Construction: facilitating inspection, site-planning, and building efforts; and
• Identity-based: providing support and networking opportunities for UAS users of particular
identities or groups (e.g., gender, minority-based, geographic).
Table 16 details examples of coalitions, working groups, and/or collaborative partnerships
formed within some of these UAS user categories.
Table 16. Example UAS partnership organizations.
GROUP NAME MEMBERS / SECTORS(S) DESCRIPTION LINKS

PARTICIPANTS
CLOUD-MAP Oklahoma State Academic/ Four universities http://www.cloud-

University, Institutional; collaborating to map.org/?q=team
University of Environmental educate students
Kentucky, on UAS and
University of improve the use of
Nebraska, UAS for weather
University of monitoring
Oklahoma
Small UAV 3D-Robotics, Consumer sUAS users http://www.small

Coalition Parrot, DJI, Products/ Services belonging to uavcoalition.org/
Airware, Amazon, various major
Google, GoPro, technology
etc. companies,
provides
(see website for
information on
complete list)
relevant
regulations and
education
regarding the
benefits of small
UAS
Media-Virginia Advance Communications; Partnership among https://khqa.com/

Tech Mid-Atlantic Publications, Inc.; Academic/ 10 major news/local/coaliti
Aviation A.H. Belo Corp.; Institutional news/media on-to-test-
Partnership The Associated companies and newsgathering-
Press; Gannett Virginia Tech to unmanned-aircraft-
Co., Inc.; Getty research how UAS systems
Images (US), Inc.; are used for news
NBCUniversal, coverage
Inc.; The New
York Times
Company; The
E.W. Scripps
Company; Sinclair
Broadcast Group,
Inc.; The
Washington Post
Women of Individual Identity-based Provides resources http://womenofco

Commercial members, see and support for mmercialdrones.or
Drones website for details women leaders in g/
the UAS and
technology
development
industries
(continued on next page)

GROUP NAME MEMBERS / SECTORS(S) DESCRIPTION LINKS

PARTICIPANTS
Property Drone Allstate, American Insurance/ Supports http://propertydro

Consortium Family Insurance; Construction; infrastructure and ne.org/
Auto Owners Environmental insurance
Insurance; companies, trade
EagleView associations, and
Technologies (see academic
website for institutions that
complete list) rely on small-
UAVs to facilitate
inspections and
post-catastrophe
recovery work
Coalition of UAS Undisclosed Consumer Promotes safety http://uascoalition

Professionals Products/ among UAV .org/about-us/
Services; operators in small
Academic/ businesses across
Institutional the United States;
education and
policy updates
Commercial Drone CAPE; droneUp; Consumer Promotes use of https://www.com

Alliance Ford; Red Products/ UAS through mercialdroneallianc
Mountain Services; advocacy and e.org/
Scientific; DGS; Academic/ policy efforts,
SkySafe; Talon Institutional; nonprofit with
Aerolytics; Professional UAS members ranging
DataWing Global; remote pilots/ from industry to
Security Industry operators or entrepreneurs to
Association (see service providers academia
website for
complete list)
AAAE UAS AAAE Airports Subgroup of the information in

Working Group AAAE Operations, press release of
Safety, Planning FAA report;
and Emergency https://www.aaae.
Management org/aaae/AAAEM
Committee, emberResponsive/
represents the Advocacy/Regulat
views of industry ory_Affairs/Regul
members regarding atory_Alerts/2016
UAS /FAA_Releases_M
icroUAS040716.as
px
Digital Notice and AAAE; AirMap Airports/ Collaborative https://www.prne

Awareness Professional UAS digital monitoring wswire.com/news-
System™ (D- remote pilot/ effort to detect releases/airmap--
NAS) operators or drones and notify the-american-
service providers airports of drone association-of-
location airport-executives-
aaae-launch-uas-
notice-system-
300242406.html
Tribal Interest DOI’s Bureau of Government; Working group https://uas.noaa.g

Group for UAS Indian Affairs Identity-based formed as part of ov/News/ArtMID
(BIA); NOAA the FAA UAS /6699/ArticleID/
UAS; tribal workshop to share 357/Tribal-
representatives experiences, Interest-Group-
discuss potential for-Unmanned-
areas for Aircraft-Systems-
collaboration with UAS-at-the-
federal efforts, and Federal-UAS-
explore interest in Workshop
UAS in tribal
communities

Some of the benefits of the collaborations listed above include:

• Clarification: Affiliation with coalitions keeps members informed about the latest UAS rules
and regulations.
• Communication/Networking: Members follow industry trends, meet others in the field, and
have access to support services.
• Promotion/Advocacy: Members benefit from professional opportunities and collectively
promote awareness about UAS development, internal and external to the industry.
• Safety: Collaborations increase awareness among members of the public and the industry,
and aid in the development of safety campaigns.
Some limitations or issues associated with the collaborations listed above include:
• Exclusivity: Collaborations may be internal to companies, particularly in the private sector,
and therefore not widely available or known to the community at large.
• Ad-hoc: Committees or partnerships may exist informally under established organizations
or agencies and therefore may be difficult to find. Working groups may be formed for confer-
ences or events and dissolve afterwards.
• Inaccessibility: Some collaborations are only open to those with financial means to participate/
join or to individuals of a specific industry, status, or identity, either explicitly or inexplicitly.

CHAPTER 6
Case Studies
Given the organizational experiences, tools, and UAS-specific engagement methods detailed
in previous chapters, the subsequent step in this research was to examine these methods on
specific stakeholder outreach case studies. This chapter features results from subject matter
expert (SME) interviews and specific communication strategy analyses.
6.1 Example Perspectives

The following represent example airports that were used to convey commonality and unique
aspects of case analyses guidance for each of the outlined scenarios (from SME Interview subject
perspectives).
• A non-primary general aviation airport, administrated by a municipal (county) government
organization, represents a rural region with a large general aviation population (150 hangars;
flight training and pleasure) with frequent use by commercial airlines (three flights per day),
service providers (agricultural; one flight per day), and business aviation; presence of general
aviation, agricultural, and small to large jet aircraft; a large local agricultural industry; and
400,000 residents in the surrounding area; located in Class D and Class G airspace.
• A primary commercial service medium hub airport, administrated by a multi-stakeholder
municipal government organization, represents a suburban region with frequent use by large
general aviation population (200 hangars; flight training and pleasure), commercial airlines
(more than 1.3 million annual passengers), cargo, and business aviation; presence of general
aviation and small to large jet aircraft; a large local manufacturing industry; a local U.S. Air
Force base; and 600,000 residents in the surrounding area; located in Class B and C airspace.
• A primary commercial service large hub airport, administrated by a municipal (city) govern-
ment organization, represents a dense urban metropolitan region with frequent use by com-
mercial airlines, cargo, and business aviation (1,600 flights per day and more than 50 million
annual passengers); presence of local general aviation, cargo, and small to large jet aircraft; a
large local manufacturing industry; and approximately 4 million residents in the surrounding
area; located in Class B airspace.
6.2 Case Analysis Scenarios

The following represent three unique case analysis scenarios, directly related to topics and
materials presented in Topic A. Each features the definition of a scenario; identification of prob-
lem (issue) origin and contributing factors; effect on airport; responsibility for addressing issue;
alternative actions to consider; and guidance to specifically address the issue. A series of further
related observations, gathered from the SME interviews, are also presented.
56

Case Studies 57
6.2.1 Scenario 1: Obtaining Operational Approval

Scenario Description: A remote pilot wants to operate a UAS near an airport and contacts
the airport to ask for information about how to do so.
6.2.1.1 Why Does the Problem Exist?

Primary Issue: Inconsistent UAS operator and airport communication inhibits support for
responsible and effective use of the technology; the UAS remote pilot/operator is unsure of the
specifics necessary to secure approval or is seeking specific advice regarding conducting permis-
sible operations within close proximity to the airport.
6.2.1.2 Contributing Factors

• Differences in administration, community, available resources, experience, perception, and
exposure to other engagement methods or tools;
• Each type of airport serves a unique community with a multitude of economic, socio-political,
and physical factors affecting their decision-making;
• Audience dictates how and what is shared to achieve the desired outcome;
• Inexperience with the technology and its application, including regulatory requirements
(federal, state, and local), best practices, capabilities/limitations, and applications;
• Lack of UAS-specific education: general unawareness of how/why the technology can be
beneficial, the controls in place to ensure maintenance of safety and protection of privacy,
and the procedures for securing appropriate certification and applicable waivers; and
• Failure to contact the right person at the airport (i.e., a designated airport UAS person or
champion) or help not immediate or responsive enough to maintain interest.
6.2.1.3 How Does the Problem Affect Airports?

• Occurrence of mishap, accident, or improper handling of request may impact level of support,
including resources (e.g., personnel, infrastructure, time, and training).
• Lack of clear, consistent, and accurate communication can lead to misinterpretation, distrust,
and loss of support (e.g., funding, local leadership buy-in, general public action); delay in
response may be perceived as lack of care, interest, or support by the airport operator, which
may promulgate increased impermissible operations.
• Failure to address could lead to operation in disregard for regulatory requirements and creation
of a safety and security risk.
• Establishes a learning opportunity to develop or clarify a supporting UAS operational
policy.
6.2.1.4 Who is Responsible for Addressing This Issue?

• Airport operators (administration/management and local government; primary)
• FAA (primary)
• UAS remote pilot (primary)
• State-level DOT (contributor)
• Original equipment manufacturer (contributor)
• Training/education provider (contributor)
• Advocacy organizations (contributor)
NOTE: Where possible, primary responsibility holders have been delineated from those
able to contribute to address the specified issue. Primary indicates the “agent of change,”
while contributor is reflective of a stakeholder or community member with the ability to support
the necessary change to implement a solution or solve the issue.

6.2.1.5 Alternative Actions

The following represent alternative actions that could be considered or conducted to address
the specified issue:
• Utilize a common list or repository of UAS operational criteria, best practices, and guidance
materials that can be shared with the public, including specific operators seeking clarification
or further information (see Chapter 7).
• Designate an airport representative to serve as a common UAS point of contact for all inqui-
ries (internal and external). Given frequency and scope of requests, consider the creation of a
UAS-specific airport safety review board to review operational proposals.
• Establish standardized procedures for UAS flight requests and educate airport staff and local
ATC on UAS regulations, procedures, and the new standardized method. Standardization can
help establish trust between the UAS remote pilot/operator and the airport. Remote pilots
requesting to fly will be assured how to contact the airport and what type of information
needs to be provided. Without standardization, there can be confusion and mistakes made
that could lead to an incident, mishap, or accident.
• Tailor outreach tools toward the specific community. This could include community
educational seminars, email, social media, local media outlets, and websites. This chapter can
assist in evaluating different types of outreach tools. SME 5 (Executive Director, non-primary
general aviation airport) tailors outreach tools to an older, rural agricultural community by
using minimal social media, keeping local media involved, and using a text messaging system.
SME 10 (Airport operator at non-primary reliever airport) uses face-to-face and telephone
contact due to primary customer preference.
6.2.1.6 Guidance
Based on the request, the first aspect to consider and determine is what type of UAS remote
pilot the individual represents; a recreational user, Part 107 remote pilot, or public remote pilot
(i.e., government agency representative). Evaluate the request to determine next steps.
The type of airspace present will determine specific requirements governing the use of UAS
at or near the airport. If the airspace is classified as “uncontrolled” (Class G), then Part 107 rules
are in effect. However, if the operation is to occur in permissible “controlled” airspace (Classes B
and D and surface area E), then FAA review and approval is necessary through designated mecha-
nisms such as the Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC) system
or the FAA Drone Zone Portal. Further operational review and approval may be necessary,
given the type of operation to be conducted—night flight, over people, from moving vehicles
in densely populated areas, multiple aircraft operation with a single remote pilot, BVLOS, and
above 400 feet AGL.
NOTE: Class A airspace generally starts at 18,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) and is not reflec-
tive of a typical UAS operation near or within proximity to an airport.
As identified in the alternative actions, there are several potential strategies that could be
employed to address this specific issue (i.e., remote pilot seeking further guidance). Each of
these options provides a potential solution. However, in many cases, their implementation
may be dependent on several factors, such as availability of resources (e.g., time, financial, and
materials), airport operator UAS subject matter expertise (e.g., familiarity with regulations),
and level of public interest. In a base condition, where availability of resources, staff, and or
expertise is low or non-existent, the airport operator (or other primary responsibility holder)
could direct the public, including the individual UAS remote pilot, to the list of UAS-specific
materials in Section 7.1 of this report. Additionally, developing a list of consultable contacts,
including those with the FAA (e.g., local Flight Standards District Office [FSDO]), state-level

Case Studies 59
DOT, airport tenants (commercial air carriers and other service providers), original equipment
manufacturers, training/education providers, advocacy and national CBOs, local law enforce-
ment, and local aviation operators (UAS remote pilots, general and commercial pilots and
operators, and other aviation operational facilities), could provide the airport with avenues to
further identify, investigate, and address future challenges.
Given the availability of more resources, the following approach could be considered, in
addition to base guidance:
• Designate a single point of contact (e.g., UAS operations representative) to manage incoming
inquiries and requests.
• Adapt and share UAS-specific resources with the targeted population using various publicly
accessible mediums: websites, social media, online or face-to-face briefings, and brochures.
• Establish a standardized advisement mechanism, to channel incoming requests to the
UAS point of contact, document interactions, and ensure consistency in the management of
requests.
For those situations where a substantial degree of resources and support are made available,
the following could also be considered:
• Develop or adapt UAS resources into educational materials and provide formal delivery at
prescheduled events, in partnership with the FAA, state-level DOT, local law enforcement,
original equipment manufacturers, training/education providers, and advocacy or national
CBOs.
• Establish a UAS-specific airport safety review board, featuring representation from the air-
port, FAA, state-level DOT, local law enforcement, UAS SMEs, and applicable advocacy
organizations or other stakeholders.
• Join and collaboratively contribute expertise and experience toward applicable partnerships
or create a local partnership to address unique challenges affecting the airport and opera-
tional aviation community.
Further guidance, from the perspectives of the three example airports, is as follows:
• Non-primary general aviation airport:
– There is reduced potential need for safety review board, given lower volume/traffic and
staff available.
– UAS operational review and approval through FAA mechanisms (e.g., LAANC or FAA
Drone Zone) is necessary, given presence of Class D airspace (surface to 2,500 feet MSL).
– Outreach methodologies need to address the general aviation community featuring smaller
aircraft operations and their subsequent higher frequency at these types of airports. Such
airports usually feature low-altitude training activities (e.g., terrain clearance tasks; “touch
and go,” no-flap, and rejected landings; pattern work; and abort training exercises). This,
combined with some commercial operations, will require a broader outreach to the com-
munity and to UAS remote pilots/operators. Such outreach should include education on
the type of typical general aviation operations at an airport communicating specifics of
local traffic patterns, the difference between airspace types (and allowances under each),
and the requirements for the use of UAS operations within the vicinity of the airport.
• Primary commercial service medium hub airport:
– There is increased potential need for a safety review board, given volume/traffic and staff
available.
– UAS operational review and approval through FAA mechanisms (e.g., LAANC) is neces-
sary, given presence of Classes B (surface to 10,000 feet MSL) and C airspace (surface to
2,500 feet MSL).

– As airspace extends out further for these types of airports, the airspace layout and configu-
ration is an important aspect for consideration and education of operation limitations.
Outreach to the community needs to expand into the correct regions for this airport’s
locale. As these types of airports are usually closer to cities and more urbanized areas,
outreach will require a more detailed review of potential UAS user groups and types of
UAS operations. Although these airports have less commercial carrier operations than
a large hub, medium hub airports typically feature growth; master plan demand fore-
casts and accurate planning for future operations and potential areas of UAS risk must
be ascertained.
• Primary commercial service large hub airport:
– There is the highest exhibited need for a safety review board, given greater volume/traffic
and staff available.
sary, given the presence of Class B airspace.
– The surrounding areas of such large and complex airports are usually close to a major city
or metropolitan area. The airport must use its higher capacity to maximize outreach efforts
as the large amount of operations represents the highest risks for UAS interference with
airport operations.
6.2.1.7 Notable SME Observations

The following represent notable observations from the SME interviews, applicable to this
scenario:
• Populations sometimes resist change; but change is needed to address concerns and make
appropriate changes to support safety and economic benefits.
• General public has numerous preconceived notions of UAS, ranging from privacy concerns to
safety. How can an airport effectively communicate intent, while alleviating concerns?
• Following regulatory compliance of the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, COA and LOA
provide the widest and most accurate dissemination; non-professionals do not use FAA
communication/briefing/approval mechanisms (e.g., AWAS, NOTAMs, WX Briefing,
LAANC) and are more apt to violate rules.
• Foster partnerships with local government and advocacy organizations.
• Many requests for information received from the public tend to relate specifically with how
to operate UAS safely or how to get a license.
• Not contacted as frequently as in the past; tower manager has become much more accessible,
frequently meeting with local groups. Part 107 UAS pilots are becoming more sophisticated
and more familiar with LAANC; they are very respectful of manned activity. Had more than
900 LAANC requests; in support of construction, media, and other local operations, which
are becoming more commonplace.
• Public is requesting permission from the wrong contacts, due to confliction written into regu-
lations and advisory materials (e.g., hobbyists versus Part 107 need to coordinate, compared
to obtaining approval).
• Start by making sure people know the door is open to help them understand; make aware that
you are an available resource.
• Have a thorough understanding of local traffic pattern, including low level helicopters.
• Do not be afraid of doing research on regulations; understand what constraints are and where
you have influence/power. When you understand, you can confidently speak with drone users
and other members of the community. Make something graphical to explain your concern
clearly; need to be willing to get out there and engage.
• There is need for greater understanding of UAS within the NAS—where they are at and how
they are treated by FAA.

Case Studies 61
6.2.2 Scenario 2: Illegal Commercial UAS Activity in Proximity

to Airport
Scenario Description: A recreational UAS remote pilot is inappropriately conducting com-
mercial operations within close proximity to the airport, unaware of rules and requirements
governing such operations (i.e., need for Part 107 certification to conduct commercial UAS
activity).

Primary Issue: Safety in the NAS is directly affected by local communication and support,
including awareness of regulations governing the applicable use of UAS; potential for occurrence
of airspace conflict between recreational UAS and manned aircraft traffic, as well as operation in
direct violation of operational requirements.

• UAS operations are primarily occurring at the local level; within VLOS.
• Airports represent the highest concentration of manned aircraft traffic in potential conflict
with UAS operations (below 400 feet AGL).
• Civil, public, and recreational UAS operators continue to rapidly grow. Civil UAS operator
knowledge is confirmed through Part 107 examination and certification, public UAS certifica-
tion is confirmed through internal mechanisms, while recreational UAS operation is subject
to registration and CBO rule compliance.
• Wide availability and affordability of UAS, coupled with lack of UAS-specific education in
the recreational market.
• New uses for UAS are constantly occurring (e.g., firefighting, commercial goods delivery, and
insurance inspection).

• Increased potential for mishap/accident/conflict due to higher congestion in close proximity
to airport.
• Airport personnel, who are the local aviation SMEs, are called upon to identify/address
issues and mitigate public concerns. They must contend with public perception and public
relations for any aviation issues and typically provide guidance to address related issues.
• Such activities reinforce negative perceptions surrounding UAS activity.

• Airport personnel, who are local SMEs, know FAA requirements, local terrain and conditions,
and how to communicate with local populace (general public, civic leaders, aviation profes-
sionals, and recreational users) (primary)
• FAA (primary)
• National CBO (primary)
• State and local law enforcement (primary)
• Individual recreational UAS remote pilot (primary)
• State-level DOT (contributor)
• Original Equipment Manufacturer (contributor)
• Local UAS operators/clubs/organizations; professional, public, and recreational (contributor)
• Local media (contributor)
• Local UAS reseller/vendor (contributor)


the specified problem:
• Under no circumstances should airport operators attempt to take control of the UAS or
they risk assuming liability (further information is available in Law Enforcement Engage-
ment With Suspected Unauthorized UAS Operations, 2016e).
• There are several options that can be used to report suspected unauthorized use of UAS
within the vicinity of an airport. These methods should be used for any suspicious, illegal, or
unsanctioned operations creating unsafe conditions within the NAS or in violation of State/
local laws and ordinances.
– FAA Hotline Reporting Form: https://hotline.faa.gov/
– Contact local Flight Standards District Office (FSDO): https://www.faa.gov/about/
office_org/field_offices/fsdo/
– Contact State/local law enforcement if state laws governing use of UAS/aircraft or opera-
tional personnel are violated, including trespass, privacy, and/or operation of a vehicle (e.g.,
Florida State Statute 860.13, Operation of aircraft while intoxicated or in a careless or reck-
less manner; 2017); reference Law Enforcement Engagement With Suspected Unauthorized
UAS Operations (FAA, 2016e) in reporting.
• SME 4, a representative from a primary commercial service: large hub airport, works with
local law enforcement to try and prevent unauthorized UAS activity.
• Preventive and deterrence methods can be placed on the property. This can include examples,
such as signs depicting “no drones” with further contact information. Signage can also be
placed in surrounding neighborhoods that fall within the five-mile surround of the airport
(FAA No Drone Zone signage examples: https://www.faa.gov/uas/where_to_fly/no_drone_
zone/). It is essential that federal, state, and local laws governing the prohibition of UAS be
fully reviewed before implementing a “No Drone Zone.”
• Hosting a local campaign for education or educational seminars can help inform the public
on proper UAS uses and the legality of operations. SME 2 (Director of Aviation Services,
U.S. Department of Interior) is responsible for a UAS-related outreach campaign (“Drones
for Good”) that proactively educates the public; SME 9 (airport operator of primary com-
mercial service: medium hub airport) hosts 10 Air Service 101 events a year to help educate
the community.
• Promote hobby groups that practice safe and responsible flight. SME 7 (executive director
of primary commercial service: non-hub airport) discusses community engagement with
hobbyists and emphasizes importance of being involved in user groups.
6.2.2.6 Guidance
This scenario represents a case where a recreational pilot is inappropriately and illegally
conducting commercial operations, without appropriate certification (Part 107 or under
a public entity’s training and certification) and possibly without applicable approvals (if in
Class B-E airspace). Illegal UAS operations are most related to the purview and involvement
of law enforcement agencies (federal, state, and local levels). Education on what is consid-
ered legal versus illegal must be clear and concise in any outreach documentation or efforts.
The methodology for the use of law enforcement depends on the type of airport and must
be planned for accordingly based on available resources, geographical reach, law enforce-
ment capabilities in the area, and overall applicability of the laws in place. As with the past
example, a hybrid approach incorporating the five major options identified under alternative
actions could be considered, based on available resources of the primary responsibility holders
including the airport operator, FAA representatives, the national CBO (AMA), and state and

Case Studies 63
local law enforcement. As the PIC, the UAS remote pilot is responsible for their actions, even
if unaware of the laws and regulations governing use; however, the primary responsibility
holders, in conjunction with and support from potential contributors (e.g., state-level DOTs,
Office of Emergency Management personnel, local operators/clubs/organizations, media, and
resellers/vendors) could use this as a catalyst moment to establish a concerted effort to engage
in outreach and education among their community.
Drone Zone) is necessary, given presence of Class D airspace.
– For these types of airports, due to their respective size and location (based on smaller
and/or remote communities), coordination with local law enforcement is key. Although
such airports have security plans in place, the vigilance level in the immediate vicinity of
such an airport may be less; for UAS illegal activity, the airport could also collaborate with
nearby airport located citizens for reporting suspect activity.
– Training on UAS activity with local law enforcement is encouraged so that the understand-
ing of the rules and regulations is known to all parties (in accordance with federal, state,
and local laws) and that proper enforcement can occur.
– There is significant higher risk potential due to airspace classification (Classes B and C)
and volume of traffic.
sary, given the presence of Classes B and C airspace.
– These types of airports may have their own security personnel or airport police that should
be able to enforce suspect UAS activity. These departments within airports could coordinate
with airport management on a joint-program to educate the public and also outline who
is responsible for enforcement within the overall airport organization structure. Medium
hub airports may also have to rely more on their local law enforcement, if the airport is
near a major city where UAS activity is more likely to occur.
– As these airports have higher volumes of air traffic and therefore usually have a higher con-
troller workload with subsequent higher vigilance requirements, airspace de-confliction
is a key element of ensuring UAS activity compliance. Use of technologies to detect or
prevent illegal UAS activity (e.g., counter UAS technology) may be a beneficial future
element to consider.
– Significant higher risk potential due to airspace classification (B) and volume of traffic.
sary, given presence of Class B airspace.
– Large hub airports (i.e., LAX and DCA) typically have an internal airport police force that
will require coordination with on airport UAS strategy to prevent or address illegal UAS
activity. Coordination with local law enforcement is also recommended as such airports
are also usually near larger metropolitan areas and the geographical reach is thus further
from the airport. In addition, some high-risk airports where terrorist activities have a
higher likelihood of occurring, may warrant further coordination with state or federal
law enforcement agencies.
– Given the higher volumes of air traffic at such airports and the higher controller workload
with subsequent increased vigilance requirements, airspace de-confliction is a key element
to ensuring UAS activity compliance. Use of technologies to detect or prevent illegal UAS
activity (e.g., counter UAS technology) may be a beneficial future element to consider.

6.2.2.7 Notable Observations

scenario:
• Recreational UAS operators can be unaware of requirements, provisions, and best practices
relating to UAS operations, including training, certification, and applicability. There are
instances of recreational users conducting civil/commercial operations.
• Ensure de-confliction/coordination of airspace, especially among hobbyists, civil, and public
(including military), and identify ways to achieve and maintain de-confliction/coordination.
• Situational awareness of the terrain is needed. Ensure that appropriate safety checks and
resources (e.g., accurate maps, local contacts, current checklists, and documentation) are
available to operators.
• There might be traffic/congestion in populous areas.
• Understand FAA/state/local policies and routinely communicate with affected parties.
• Overcome resistance to change, especially from those satisfied with keeping things the same
(i.e., need to overcome static reluctance).
• Recommend that airports communicate a policy/brief description of local airspace with link
to FAA facility map. Do not be silent based on the perception that if nothing is said, it must
be legal.
• There has been significant increase in UAS sightings from pilots (near misses) observed over
the last year. However, no specific UAS incident other than sightings have been reported.
6.2.3 Scenario 3: Establishing Economic Benefit of UAS at an Airport

Scenario Description: An airport is considering marketing research, development, testing,
and evaluation services to local technology firms and manufacturers; they are experiencing diffi-
culty in communicating their message and obtaining support from the local population, includ-
ing the general public, municipal leaders, and local economic partners.

Primary Issue: The need to achieve economic benefit from the inclusion of UAS operations
at or in close proximity to airports; due to relative proliferation and growth of UAS, the market-
ing approach is not yet a proven one-methodology item; and the existence of concerns affecting
investment potential, including privacy, sensitivity of proprietary details, technology develop-
ment dependencies, potential need for specialized infrastructure, and risk.

• There is insufficient support, including availability of resources (e.g., marketing and com-
munication personnel, finances, and time).
• Lack of UAS-specific education; local economic development/government unaware of UAS
benefits/capabilities, lack of UAS operators/professionals, and public sentiment, including
those aviation professionals resistant to change, against the use of UAS (e.g., safety or privacy
concerns, worries of loss of jobs/revenue, and belief rules/regulations are over burdensome).
• Competition from conventional methods when technology is unable to meet or exceed con-
ventional performance, complete required functions, or finish tasks due to technical or regu-
latory limitations (e.g., flight BVLOS, over people/specific areas, and in close proximity to
manned aviation operations).
• There is a lack of partnership among operators, government organizations, and local business.
• There is a need to ensure de-confliction in airspace (among manned and unmanned
operations).
• Promotion of safety in the aviation space has only recently begun to include UAS.

Case Studies 65

• Unfamiliarity of requirements/regulations prevents appropriate use of UAS or delays
incorporation (i.e., late to market, requiring later catch up).
• Reduces financial support; creates a burden for stakeholders; takes resources away from other
important priorities.
• Loss of authority or credibility in the eyes of the general public and other stakeholders.
• There is a need to educate airport marketing personnel.

• Airport operator (primary)—marketing/public relations staff/department
• Local and national economic development and advocacy organizations (primary)
• Service providers (primary)
• Partners and stakeholders (contributor)
• Local manufacturers and industry (contributor)
• Local media (contributor)
• UAS remote pilots (contributor)—civil and public (recreational to a limited capacity for sales
of equipment/training, but not related to operation)

the specified problem:
• Educate local community, potential investors, and local government officials. SME 5 (execu-
tive director, non-primary general aviation airport) recommends focusing on the question of
how UAS benefit the airport and explaining the advantages of using UAS, over conventional
methods. SME 1 (UAS test range operator) emphasizes educating legislators to ensure they
have a full understanding of airspace and how segregation is possible. All SMEs agree that the
education of the local community is imperative to gain their acceptance.
• Create or participate in a series of partnerships, as follows:
– Local economic development partnerships featuring airport operator, local government,
chambers of commerce, local manufacturers, service providers, and industry;
– Advocacy organizations such as AUVSI, AAAE, and ASSURE as these agencies can help
promote the use of UAS and establish credibility; and
– Local schools and universities using UAS to promote aviation and provide enhanced com-
munity engagement and involvement.
• SME 1, SME 5, SME 7, SME 8 (commercial UAS operator), and SME 9 are all involved in
partnerships or encourage coordination with such groups.
• Create a marketing and public relations division or educate current personnel at the air-
port about UAS and their benefits. An educational program, such as MOOC or other online
courses, can provide flexible options to educate on-site personnel.
• Develop and implement a marketing campaign or materials supporting coordinated messages
exhibiting benefits, capabilities, and points of contact.
6.2.3.6 Guidance
Guidance on UAS economic benefit understanding is primarily related to the types of users
and their subsequent benefit to the communities at an airport. The establishment of the correct
perception of UAS is crucial. This can only happen through proper education within airport
outreach material. The promotion of aviation and the uses of aviation apply to UAS opera-
tions and must be carefully construed as such, given proper legal limitations. This is the balance
that must be achieved in order for the public to understand the overall benefit of UAS. Key
guidance elements are: understanding the types of UAS operations (categories), that each have

their respective benefits, whether private or commercial, and their applicability to the airport’s
overall operation while highlighting safety and security. As with the past examples, availability
of resources will dictate the end applicability of potential solutions identified under alternative
actions. However, in a base condition, each of the primary responsibility holders could be con-
sidered for the lead role in organizing and managing strategic partnerships, featuring the unique
benefits, capabilities, and connections of the other specified primaries and contributors.
Drone Zone) will be necessary for each operation, given presence of Class D airspace.
– Economic benefits of UAS operations for general aviation airports of this type have to pro-
mote community involvement in aviation and applications of UAS to new types of business
(e.g., survey business, telecommunications companies, and inspection service companies).
The airport should be considered as the hub of such operations, serving as the attractant for
such businesses. An economic cost benefit analysis could then be ascertained, in partner-
ship with applicable stakeholders.
– There is significant higher risk potential due to airspace classification (B and C) and volume
of traffic.
– The same economic benefit principles as a general aviation airport may not hold true for
larger commercial airports simply due to the size of the operations and the larger aircraft,
which becomes more of a concern for safety and associated risks. For these types of air-
ports, it is important to establish a balance between safety and the economic benefits when
UAS operations are contained and properly managed.
– The economic benefits for UAS operations for these types of airports need to be expressed
in a way that balances the overall community economic impacts (such as business enhance-
ment and promotion of aviation with the overall applicability of UAS in the region).
Because of the type of operation at a larger airport, the focus on UAS outreach should be
on certification, safety, and security with a lesser promotion of overall economic benefits.
– There is significant higher risk potential due to airspace classification (B) and volume
of traffic.
– The same economic benefit principles that apply to both the general aviation and medium
hub airports may not hold true for large hub commercial airports, based on increased
operational sizing, volume, and aircraft types supported. However, as with the medium
hub, it is important to establish a balance between safety and the economic benefits when
UAS operations are contained and properly managed.
– As with the medium hub airport, the economic benefits for UAS operations need to be
expressed in a way that balances the overall community economic impacts (such as busi-
ness enhancement and promotion of aviation with the overall applicability of UAS in the
region). Focus on UAS outreach should be on certification, safety, and security, with lesser
promotion of overall economic benefits.
6.2.3.7 Notable Observations

scenario:
• Keeping up with service demand is important as the field is rapidly growing as are the interests
in application of UAS technologies.
• Slow review and approval turn around can delay or prevent desired UAS operations.

Case Studies 67
• Many airports are directly connected to economic development. There is a need to ensure
economic viability and support by attracting those with mature technology to the operational
setting and ensuring availability of a well-trained work force.
• Ensuring appropriate communication connectivity with all applicable parties, from FAA
towers to local municipal leaders, is important.
• Partnering with local chambers and economic development offices to collaborate and foster
a healthy UAS development environment is needed.
• Targeting potential commercial users to share important resources and engage with the larger
community, including community leaders, can be helpful.
• Establishing the goal to posture the airport as a single point of contact will help manage
information, people, regulations, guidance, and other beneficial resources.

CHAPTER 7
Other Resources
The following materials, including websites and resources, can be used to support airport
outreach and engagement activities. These resources include those specific to UAS information,
communication, and further details of previously discussed engagement tools.
7.1 UAS Information Resources

7.1.1 General Information
FAA UAS Resources
• UAS main page: https://www.faa.gov/uas/
• UAS FAQ: https://www.faa.gov/uas/faqs/
• Getting Started: https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/
• Beyond the Basics: https://www.faa.gov/uas/beyond_the_basics/
• Report an Accident: https://www.faa.gov/uas/report_accident/
• Resources: https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/
• Flight Standards District Offices (FSDO): https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/
fsdo/
• UAS Facility Maps: https://www.faa.gov/uas/request_waiver/uas_facility_maps/
• FAA Drone Zone Portal (register UAS [Part 107 or Section 336] and report an accident):
https://faadronezone.faa.gov/
Know Before You Fly

• Main page: http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/
• Fly Responsibly
– Recreational User: http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/for-recreational-users/
– Business User: http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/for-business-users/
– Government Entity: http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/for-public-entities/
– Educational Use: http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/education-use/
– U.S. Airspace Map: http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/air-space-map/
– Register Your Drone: http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/register-your-drone/
– UAS Best Practices: http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/uas-best-practices/
• Facts
– Quick Facts: http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/facts/
– FAQ: http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/frequently-asked-questions/
• Resources: http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/resources/
• News: http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/news/
68

Other Resources 69
AMA (National CBO)

• AMA main page: https://www.modelaircraft.org/
• About AMA: https://www.modelaircraft.org/about-ama
• Membership: https://www.modelaircraft.org/membership/enroll
• Programs: https://www.modelaircraft.org/member-programs
• AMA Safety Code: https://www.modelaircraft.org/sites/default/files/105.pdf
• AMA Documents: https://www.modelaircraft.org/documents
7.1.2 UAS Operational Resources

FAA Resources
• B4UFly Mobile App: https://www.faa.gov/uas/where_to_fly/b4ufly/
• Airspace Restrictions: https://www.faa.gov/uas/where_to_fly/airspace_restrictions/
• Request a Part 107 Waiver or Operation in Controlled Airspace: https://www.faa.gov/uas/
request_waiver/
• Petitioning for Exemption under Section 333: https://www.faa.gov/uas/beyond_the_basics/
section_333/how_to_file_a_petition/
• NOTAMS, TFRs, and Aircraft Safety Alerts: https://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/notams_tfr/
• TFR List: http://tfr.faa.gov/tfr2/list.html
• Visualize It: See FAA UAS Data on a Map: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/
index.html?id=9c2e4406710048e19806ebf6a06754ad
• PilotWeb Home: https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov/PilotWeb/
DHS
• UAS Critical Infrastructure: https://www.dhs.gov/uas-ci
• UAS FAQ: https://www.dhs.gov/unmanned-aircraft-systems-faq
• Considerations for Law Enforcement: https://www.dhs.gov/uas-law-enforcement
Other Resources
• U.S. Department of the Interior: https://www.doi.gov/aviation/uas
• AOPA Best Practices for Flying Your Drone Within Five Miles of an Airport: https://
www.aopa.org/go-fly/aircraft-and-ownership/drones/best-practices-for-flying-your-drone-
near-an-airport
• North Carolina DOT, Unmanned Aircraft Systems: https://www.ncdot.gov/divisions/
aviation/uas/Pages/default.aspx
• International Fire Chiefs Association Unmanned Aerial Systems Toolkit: https://www.iafc.
org/topics-and-tools/resources/resource/unmanned-aerial-systems-uas-toolkit
• Justice Technology Information Center, UAS for Public Safety Resource Links: https://
www.justnet.org/uas/resources.html
7.1.3 Airport/Municipal UAS Outreach Examples

• Tampa International Airport Unmanned Aircraft Systems (Drones): http://www.tampa
airport.com/UAS
• St. Pete-Clearwater International, Unmanned Aircraft Operations (Drones): https://
www.fly2pie.com/aviation-business/drones
• North Carolina Airport Technical Assistance Program (AirTap), Understanding Unmanned
Aircraft Systems (UAS) for Airport Operators: https://itre.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/
2016/05/NCAirTAP_UAS_NCAA_RegMtgs_Sep2016-1.pdf

• Bellingham International Airport Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS): https://www.port

ofbellingham.com/816/Unmanned-Aircraft-Systems-UAS
• Santa Monica Municipal Airport UAS/Drone Operators: https://www.smgov.net/Departments/
Airport/Pilots/UAS/Drone_Operators.aspx
• Port of Portland Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Operations: https://www.portofport
land.com/Programs/Drones
• City of Durango Drones and UAS: http://www.durangogov.org/index.aspx?NID=1043
• City of Salem Unmanned Aircraft Systems (Drones): https://www.cityofsalem.net/Pages/
unmanned-aircraft-systems-drone.aspx
• La Crosse Regional Airport UAV/UAS/Drone Operations: https://www.lseairport.com/
content/uav-uas-drone-operations
• Redmond Municipal Airport Drone Information and Regulations: http://www.flyrdm.com/
?Drone-InformationRegulations
• Fresno Yosemite International Airport UAS/Drones: https://flyfresno.com/drone-info/
• Telluride Regional Airport Drones and UAS: https://tellurideairport.com/drones-and-uas/
• Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport Fly Your Drone Responsibly: https://www.sky
harbor.com/Business/RulesAndRegulations/drones
• San Bernardino International Airport Drone Flight Information: http://www.sbdairport.
com/drone_information/
• Cable Airport UAS/Drone Q&A: http://cableairport.com/uasdrone-qa/
• Reno-Stead Airport FAA-Designated Test Site: https://renoairport.com/reno-stead/
faa-designated-uav-uas-test-site
7.1.4 Land Owner Permission

• University of Cincinnati: https://www.uc.edu/content/dam/uc/af/financialpolicies/Docs/
UASFAQs.pdf
• University of Colorado Boulder: https://www.colorado.edu/today/uas-policy-frequently-
asked-questions
• Princeton University: https://drones.princeton.edu/learn-more/frequently-asked-questions
7.1.5 Reporting
• FAA Drone Zone Portal: https://faadronezone.faa.gov/#/
• FAA: https://www.faa.gov/uas/where_to_fly/airspace_restrictions/#airports
• FAA: https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/uas_sightings_report/
7.1.6 Insurance
• Unmanned Risk Management: http://unmannedrisk.com/about/
• AIG Insurance: https://www.aig.com/business/insurance/specialty/unmanned-aircraft-system
• Aerial Pak: http://www.aerialpak.com/details.jsp
• Bullock Agency INC.: http://www.bullockagency.com/
7.1.7 Economic
• Jak Linkel and Russell Wolfe; AUVSI XPONENTIAL: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.
ntrs.nasa.gov/20180002816.pdf
• FAA: https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/
• Darryl Jenkins, Bijan Vashigh, Clint Oster, and Tulinda Larsen; Embry-Riddle Aeronautical
University: https://news.erau.edu/-/media/files/news/forecast-commercial-uas-package-
delivery-market.pdf?la=en

Other Resources 71
7.2 Communication Resources

7.2.1 Communication and Marketing Strategy Development
• U.S. Office of Personnel Management Communications Strategies: https://www.opm.gov/
services-for-agencies/workforce-succession-planning/communications-strategies/
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Adolescent Health Strategic
Communications Toolkit (training): https://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/resources-and-training/
online-learning-modules/strategic-communications-toolkit/index.html
• United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women, Key Steps
in Designing a Communications Strategy: http://www.endvawnow.org/en/articles/1235-key-
steps-in-designing-a-communications-strategy.html?next=1236
• Harvard Business Review Four Steps to Building Strategic Communications Capability:
https://hbr.org/2012/03/four-steps-to-building-a-strat
• Berghof Foundation Designing Effective Communication Strategy: https://www.berghof-
foundation.org/fileadmin/redaktion/Publications/Other_Resources/Strategic_Frameworks/
Framework_Communication_Strategies_final.pdf
• Center for Business Planning Marketing Plan: http://businessplans.org/guide/market/
7.2.2 Briefing and Educational Development

• GUIDE Inc. How to Organize a Town Hall Meeting: A Planning Guide: https://guideinc.org/
wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Organizing-a-Town-Hall-Meeting.pdf
• David Lazer, the Harvard Kennedy School and Northeastern University; Michael Neblo,
Ohio State University; Kevin Esterling, University of California-Riverside and Kathy
Goldschmidt, Congressional Management Foundation; Congressional Management Foun-
dation: http://www.congressfoundation.org/storage/documents/CMF_Pubs/online-town-
hall-meetings.pdf
• Marshfield Clinic: https://northwoodscoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Chapter-
1-Tips-on-Writing-a-Press-Release.pdf
• NTSB: https://www.ntsb.gov/news/speeches/RSumwalt/Documents/Sumwalt_121029.pdf
• FAA: https://www.faa.gov/news/stay_connected/
• U.S. DOT: https://www.transportation.gov/social
• John C. Bertot, Paul T. Jaeger, and Justin M. Grimes; Government Information Quarterly:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.03.001
• EPA: https://www.epa.gov/international-cooperation/public-participation-guide-tools-
inform-public
• FAA: https://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/2018/media/SepOct2018.pdf
• University of Washington: http://www.washington.edu/teaching/teaching-resources/
preparing-to-teach/designing-your-course-and-syllabus/#Course
• Alexandra M. Pickett; State University of New York: https://commons.suny.edu/cotehub/
files/2015/05/Final2-N2OLManual-2015.pdf
• Ashton Anderson, Daniel Huttenlocher, Jon Kleinberg, and Jure Leskovec; Cornell Univer-
sity: https://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/www14-courses.pdf
• edX MOOC; Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University: https://courses.edx.org/c4x/edX/
edX101/asset/edX_MOOC_Development_Checklist-a11y.pdf
• University of Minnesota Library: http://open.lib.umn.edu/humanresourcemanagement/
chapter/8-4-designing-a-training-program/
• Dawna Rosenkranz and Dr. César O. Malavé; Texas A&M Engineering: http://ppo.tamu.edu/
ppo/media/documents/Continuing%20Education/Guide-To-Continuing-Education.pdf
• Community Tool Box: https://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/structure/training-and-
technical-assistance

• Imperial College of Science, Technology, and Medicine: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/

imperial-college/administration-and-support-services/staff-development/public/ipd/Pre-
paring-an-effective-briefing.pdf
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/urban-studies-
and-planning/11-225-argumentation-and-communication-fall-2006/lecture-notes/guide_
pres.pdf
7.2.3 Partnership Development and Sustainment

• FAA: https://www.faa.gov/uas/programs_partnerships/
• FAA: https://www.faa.gov/uas/programs_partnerships/uas_integration_pilot_program/
• The Aspen Institute: http://www.skilledtradesplaybook.org/10-steps-form-sustain-partnership/
• Bruce Eckfeldt, Business Insider: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-build-and-
maintain-great-business-partnerships-2015-5
• AmeriCorps & Senior Corps: https://www.nationalservice.gov/special-initiatives/days-service/
martin-luther-king-jr-day-service/toolkits/other-resources/tips
• Meg Skizim, Nick Harris, Claudia Leonardi, and Richard Scribner, Ethnicity and Disease
Journal: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5684776/
• Richard Klophaus, Journal of Airport Management: https://www.ingentaconnect.com/
content/hsp/cam/2016/00000010/00000002/art00009
• Ryan R. J. McAllister, Bruce M. Taylor, and Ben P. Harman; Policy Studies Journal: https://
doi.org/10.1111/psj.12103
• Vivien Lowndes & Helen Sullivan, Local Government Studies Journal: https://doi.org/
10.1080/0300393042000230920
• John Snow, Inc. (JSI): https://www.jsi.com/JSIInternet/Inc/Common/_download_pub.
cfm?id=14333&lid=3
• Aida Giachello; March of Dimes: http://www.aapcho.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/
Giachello-MakingCommunityPartnershipsWorkToolkit.pdf
7.3 Further Tools: Examples and Details

The following represent additional details regarding the previously discussed tool types.
Applicability will depend upon individual communication strategies, past experience, and level
of user familiarity.
7.3.1 Social Media Examples

7.3.1.1 Facebook
Facebook is one of the most popular social media platforms with the largest geographical
range of users when compared to any other social media platform (Dunn, 2017). Facebook offers
amenities such as creating interactive “groups” or “pages” to convene audiences with common
interests and promoting specific products and/or services that would reach a specific, targeted
audience using algorithms. Facebook also enables real-time sharing of information from other
Internet sources, visual demonstrations through posting photos and live-streaming videos, and
immediate commentary or reactions on the information being shared. Facebook provides a suite
of tools to the advertiser to measure viewings, interactions, and other activities, which provide
a better understanding of the effectiveness of the content being shared. At the same time, due
to the interactive nature of Facebook, it requires extensive efforts to continually manage posts,
engage with users, and maintain popularity and relevance in users’ “news feeds.” There are also
far-reaching privacy concerns with the use of Facebook and other social media tools, which

Other Resources 73
collect personal information. Appropriate safeguards that control the privacy of users as well as
airport data should be considered before fully utilizing this tool.
7.3.1.2 YouTube
YouTube provides a platform to create a “channel” and post videos. YouTube users can
subscribe to those channels to receive updates when new content is posted. YouTube videos
have the most opportunity of all the platforms discussed in this section for sharing and having
popular videos reach large numbers of users. For instance, the FAA published a video to high-
light its KnowB4UFly campaign, which garnered over 285,000 views (YouTube, 2014). Despite
its potential wide reach, the content for the YouTube videos could be challenging to create, as
videos require more resources to create and the channel requires maintenance to stay relevant
to its subscribers.
7.3.1.3 Twitter
Twitter provides an arena to share real-time updates in limited text. Advertisers and users can
begin or follow important trending news using the # symbol to tag important keywords. Twitter
allows users to follow and repost (retweet) content from any account. The accounts are easy
to set up and only allow a 280-character limit for each post. Individual accounts also have the
potential to reach larger numbers of users. For instance, the FAA Twitter account (@FAANews)
has over 265,000 followers (Twitter, 2018). The platform can be used for quick updates with less
focus on the video/picture visual.
7.3.1.4 Links to UAS Community Relevant Social Media Accounts

• Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
– Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AOPApilots/
– LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/aopa/
– Twitter: https://mobile.twitter.com/AOPA
• Alliance for System Safety of UAS through Research Excellence (FAA UAS Center of Excellence)
– Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/ASSUREuas
– LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/9266738
– Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ASSUREuas
• Association of Commercial Unmanned Aircraft Systems
– Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ProfessionalUAS/
– LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/association-of-commercial-unmanned-
aircraft-systems/
– Twitter: https://mobile.twitter.com/professionaluas
• Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International
– Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AUVSI-316376653645/
– LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/auvsi/
– Twitter: https://mobile.twitter.com/AUVSI
– YouTube: https://m.youtube.com/user/AUVSI
• FAA
– Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/FAA/
– Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/faanews
– LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/faa/
– Twitter: https://mobile.twitter.com/FAANews
– YouTube: https://m.youtube.com/user/FAAnews
• Los Angeles International Airport
– Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LAInternationalAirport/
– Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/flyLAXairport/

– Twitter: https://mobile.twitter.com/flyLAXairport
– YouTube: https://m.youtube.com/user/LAXairport1
• Know Before You Fly
– Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Know-Before-You-Fly-1048685898499732/
– Twitter: https://twitter.com/FlyResponsibly
• North Carolina DOT
– Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NCDOT
– Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ncdot
– Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ncdotcom/
– LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/ncdot/
– Twitter: https://twitter.com/ncdot
– YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/ncdotcommunications
• U.S. Forest Service
– Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/USForestService/
– Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/groups/3120876@N22/
– Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/u.s.forestservice/
– LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/usda-forest-service/about/
– Twitter: https://mobile.twitter.com/forestservice
– YouTube: https://m.youtube.com/user/usdaForestService
7.3.2 Traditional Marketing Tools

7.3.2.1 Television
Advertisements via TV can reach a wide variety of audiences and offer visual and auditory rep-
resentations of a product or service. TV advertisements provide similar opportunities to online
social media. However, high costs are associated with TV advertisements due to the components
necessary to develop the content, air time, and the necessary repetition of airing the advertise-
ment to have the most benefit from this medium.
7.3.2.2 Radio
Radio can provide opportunities for auditory information sharing. Radio programs and
advertisements do not have high costs associated with them and can be created in a short period
of time. A benefit as well as a challenge of this medium is that radio networks tend to be local-
ized. Therefore, while radio can be a convenient resource to communicate information that may
only be relevant to specific locations, advertisements on radio networks can also be limited in
their ability to reach others beyond the targeted local audience. Radio can be used by airports to
broadcast information regarding safety practices of UAS near airports, or regulators can utilize
radio news briefings to inform the public of any special situations (e.g., presidential visit) result-
ing in UAS operations being temporarily suspended (such information should also be available
to UAS operators via NOTAMs and the B4UFly mobile app). Relative to other engagement tools
(such as online applications), radio may be outdated and less frequently utilized. However, radio
could reach segments of the population who would otherwise not have been familiar with the
other commonly used forms of public outreach tools.
7.3.2.3 Print
Printed materials such as mailers, brochures, documents, and posters make information more
tangible to users and serve as strong supplements to other forms of marketing such as confer-
ences and presentations. Printed materials pose challenges when targeting stakeholders because
of the integration of technology in society. This method may be perceived as out of date and
difficult to distribute, as using paper is not a sustainable medium.

Other Resources 75
7.3.2.4 Online
Online marketing can be an effective way to reach targeted individuals, groups, and orga-
nizations, including web-based banners and pages, podcasts, and emails. Advertisements on
high-traffic websites can be viewed by a large number of people. Although these advertisements
can be costly, repetitive viewings will reach key stakeholders.
7.3.2.5 Podcasts
Podcasts are another medium available online that provides an auditory prompt for a
product or program. Targeting the right audience with a podcast may be challenging due to
the wide variety of podcasts and topics covered. For instance, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots
Association (AOPA) informative podcasts range from Part 107 explanations to other pilot
certifications (AOPA, 2018).
7.3.2.6 Email
Email blasts through platforms like Constant Contact are another way to market. Challenges
with email blasts include determining the appropriate distribution list, being mistaken for spam
in email filters, and competing entities that are also using email blasts. Also, the target stake-
holder may not open or view the email. Email may be beneficial to closed groups or identified
groups such as interested community UAS operators who give permission for email contact
through an airport operator.
7.3.3 Documentation
7.3.3.1 Reports
Reports are published documents (print or electronic) presenting informational or techni-
cal knowledge to convey facts regarding a topic of interest to its target audience. Reports can
communicate an organization’s position regarding a topic of interest to engage a stakeholder
community. The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) publishes an
annual report on key public policy issues impacting the institute’s membership (AIAA, n.d.-a)
and they publish reports online that are informational, convey opinion, or establish the insti-
tute’s position on public policy (AIAA, n.d.-b). AUVSI provides updates to the community
regarding the unmanned systems market such as economic reports (AUVSI, 2013), waivers
under Part 107 (AUVSI, n.d.-a), and the organization’s strategic plan (AUVSI, n.d.-b).
A report can convey an organization’s current capabilities, intent, and roadmap to convey
information to that topic’s stakeholders. The DHS has published a report in 2015, “Unmanned
Systems in Homeland Security,” which summarized how unmanned systems could be leveraged
for homeland security, their advantages, disadvantages, and constraints (DHS, 2015-a).
Reports can summarize research findings. Another DHS report, “Counter-Unmanned Aerial
Systems,” presented a market survey of counter UAS technologies that can be “commercially
available for purchase by emergency responder agencies in the United States” (DHS, 2017-b,
p. 6). Precision Hawk shared the FAA Pathfinder Program Phase I research results addressing
its demonstration of extended VLOS via a technical report published on its website (Precision
Hawk, 2016). Reports can also feature the presentation of the outcomes of meetings and other
events. For instance, each of the recent FAA Aviation Rulemaking Committees (ARCs) pub-
lished reports sharing the findings of the ARC including its recommendations (FAA, 2015-a,
FAA, 2016-c, and FAA, 2017-a).
7.3.3.2 Regulations and Policies

Documents can be used to share regulations and policies with a stakeholder community.
A prime example of using documents to share regulation and policy is FAA and ICAO, who

share regulations, orders, advisory circulars, and airworthiness directives, with the aviation
community. Federal regulations can be accessed online through eCFR.gov (U.S. Government
Publishing Office, n.d.-a), which is an electronic repository for the CFR. For example, the regu-
latory laws established by the FAA under Title 14 of the CFR (U.S. Government Publishing
Office, n.d.-b) define regulations for aviation within the NAS. For international UAS regulation,
policy, and guidance, ICAO maintains an online portal providing access to international regu-
lation and policy (ICAO, n.d.). For domestic UAS community-specific regulations, policies,
and other documents, the FAA maintains an online portal to provide broader access to these
materials. Examples of domestic policy and regulation documents include:
• Summary of the Part 107 Rule (FAA, 2016-e)
• AC 107-2: Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) (FAA, 2016-f )
• Memorandum: Educational Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) (FAA, 2016-b)
Non-governmental entities can also draft their own policies to establish required practices
or capabilities for utilization of their services and resources. These documents are supported
by the authority of the authoring organization. One important consideration, especially for
regulation and policies related to disruptive technologies such as UAS, is that they can evolve
rapidly to address emergent needs, lessons learned, changes to local, state, and/or federal laws.
Artifacts such as effective date, author, and revision history can assist the reader in determining
the validity and applicability of a regulation or policy.
7.3.3.3 Research/Peer-Reviewed Articles

Research and peer-reviewed articles are documents that share the findings of a study with its
target audience. Following a peer review, the audience is aware that the document has passed
a significant benchmark regarding the quality and validity of the information conveyed. These
documents are typically targeted toward research and development, policy, or academic inter-
ests and may provide focused topical coverage. However, due to the time intensive processes
of research (i.e., development, analyses, and documentation) and peer review (evaluation and
revision), the communicated information is less timely than other forms of documentation.
Research groups, trade/professional organizations, and other organizations can distribute
these findings through journals, conference proceedings, document repositories, or their general
website. The NASA UAS Traffic Management program maintains a document repository of
its technical reports and research articles presenting technology development and evaluation
results (NASA, n.d.). The FAA maintains a repository of technical reports from its research
partners (FAA, n.d.-c). The AIAA, a professional society, maintains a digital repository for its
journal articles, conference proceedings, standards, and other documents (AIAA, n.d.-c). The
Northeast UAS Airspace Integration Research Alliance, an FAA-designated UAS test site, shared
a peer-reviewed conference article regarding research it supports in ground-based detect-and-
avoid technology on its website (Young, 2017).
7.3.3.4 Briefings/Presentations/Press Releases

Public briefings, presentations, and press releases permit an organization to share a written
statement addressing a topic of interest with the industry such as newsworthy events, statements
regarding public or organizational issues, presentation slides, and other materials. Briefings
can be distributed as either prepared written statements or transcripts of the briefing. AIAA
and AAAE both provide pages on their website to distribute digital copies of past briefings to
Congress and other government entities (AIAA, n.d.-d; AAAE, n.d.-a).
Presentations can be shared in print or digital formats (e.g., PDF or Microsoft PowerPoint)
to the stakeholder community. For example, the Lone Star UAS Test Site shared on its website

Other Resources 77
a briefing, “FAA UAS Test Site Designation,” to share with the UAS community, state and local
governments, state and local communities regarding the impact of their UAS test site designa-
tion (Cifuentes, 2014). As another example, a briefing to the UAS community announcing the
Cable News Network (CNN)’s participation under the FAA’s Pathfinder program was shared
online, “Pathfinder Focus Area 1: Operations Over People,” providing information regarding
the program to the UAS community unable to witness the briefing in person (CNN, n.d.).
Press releases are typically shared with the media to convey newsworthy information to the
public including the organization’s stakeholder community. The media utilizes press releases
to gain awareness of newsworthy information. The AAAE shares its press releases with its
membership online (AAAE, n.d.-b). AUVSI provides a repository of press releases made by
AUVSI (AUVSI, n.d.-c) and by its corporate members (AUVSI, n.d.-d). Numerous airports
or transit authorities issue press releases addressing public concern, events, airport changes,
and service disruptions. Examples include Daytona Beach International Airport (Daytona
Beach International Airport, n.d.), Seattle-Tacoma International Airport via the Port of
Seattle (Port of Seattle, n.d.), and Philadelphia International Airport (Philadelphia Inter
national Airport, n.d.).
7.3.3.5 Magazines and Newsletters

Magazines and newsletters provide a means of sharing periodical information with an audi-
ence. Professional societies, recreational UAS organizations, and other communities utilize
these engagement tools to provide opinion, news, and educational material through articles
and advertisements. Magazines typically address one major theme, topic, or community and
can be distributed in print and/or digital formats. AUVSI provides a monthly magazine,
Unmanned Systems (AUVSI, 2018), which provides industry updates, advocacy updates, calls
for community engagement, advertisements, and technical articles. The Academy of Model
Aeronautics (AMA) publishes and distributes a Model Aviation Magazine (AMA, n.d.-a) for
its membership.
Newsletters (both print and digital) function like magazines but are much shorter in length
and on a compressed timescale. Given their limited size, the development, print, and distribu-
tion costs of newsletters are substantially less than magazines. Print newsletters, like magazines,
can feature articles, opinion pieces, updates of news and events, and/or provide a call to action.
Digital newsletters are like their print counterparts but can utilize hyperlinks to provide readers
with access to materials published elsewhere. In both cases, it is not uncommon for newsletters
to include advertisement space. The AMA provides a free digital newsletter to its membership,
AMA Today (AMA, n.d.-b).
7.3.3.6 Technical Manuals and Guidebooks

Technical manuals and guidebooks provide procedures and/or guidance to a target audience.
Uses include instructions on the use or maintenance of a system and procedures to be followed
to adhere to a set of requirements or best practices. One example of this type of document in use
includes the FAA’s Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (FAA, 2014), which pro-
vides more accessible guidance for the recreational UAS community seeking to operate under
the special rules under Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. Example
guidebooks include:
• Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) at Airports: A Primer, was published by TRB to provide
initial guidance to airports regarding UAS integration considerations and policies (Neubauer
et al., 2015).
• DHS has published the guidebook, Best Practices for Protecting Privacy, Civil Rights & Civil
Liberties in Unmanned Aircraft Systems Programs, as guidance for best practices regarding

the issues identified in the document’s title for other agencies considering the development
of a UAS program (DHS, 2015-b).
• The Academy of Model Aircraft provides a guidebook on its safety code to its membership
(AMA, 2014).
• The Police Foundation provides a guidebook for law enforcement seeking to use UAS for
public safety, Community Policing & Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS): Guidelines to Enhance
Community Trust (Valdovinos et al., 2016).
• The Embry-Riddle sUAS Consumer Guide, an online guidebook, provides information to
recreational and commercial operators regarding the various options of small UAS on the
market (Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, n.d.), but was maintained digitally to accom-
modate the rapid changes to the marketplace.
7.3.3.7 Textbooks, Study Guides, and Workbooks

Textbooks, study guides, and workbooks can serve a similar role and function as technical
manuals and guidebooks, but these are generally written for broader education and training.
Study guides and workbooks provide primarily a self-directed learning opportunity. For example,
FAA has developed training resources for individuals seeking a remote pilot certificate with small
UAS rating including:
• Airmen Certification Standards (FAA, 2016-d)
• Knowledge Test Study Guide (FAA, 2016-g)
• Knowledge Test Sample Questions (FAA, 2017-b)
• Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge (FAA, 2016-a)
Textbooks are typically written to support curriculum for a course, but can also be consumed
by readers for their informational value. For example, Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Guide
functions as a textbook for academic courses, short courses, and workshops regarding sUAS
history, subsystems, applications, and safety practices, while also serving as a guidebook for
novice members of the UAS operational community (Terwilliger et al., 2017). Another example
of a UAS textbook which addresses safety risk assessment is Drones: Safety Risk Management
for the Next Evolution of Flight (Wolf, 2017).
7.3.3.8 Fact/Information Sheets

Fact and information sheets are typically one-page documents, brochures, postcards, or
similar handout materials that can be shared physically or digitally to provide concise and
accessible information to the target community. These documents typically combine high-
impact visuals with limited text. The FAA provides a number of different fact sheets relating
to UAS operations for a variety of stakeholder communities. For example, the FAA provides a
manufacturer’s digital toolkit, which is a printable information card to share pertinent safety
information with consumers purchasing a small UAS. The FAA also provides a simple informa-
tion sheet regarding the various UAS applications and weight categories to inform operators
about which regulations and policies are relevant for their intended use. The FAA’s “How to
Label Your Drone” (FAA, n.d.-a) provides a fact sheet regarding registration markings for
small UAS. Another example of an FAA fact sheet is the FAA’s “Law Enforcement Reference
Card” (FAA, n.d.-b) providing law enforcement with guidance on how to observe and report
unauthorized or unsafe UAS activities to the FAA.
Fact and information sheets can also be used to provide an overview of a business, facility,
or service to the public with a summary of key details of relevance to their target community.
The NASA UTM program provides the “NASA UTM Fact Sheet,” which summarizes the pro-
gram, its relevant partners, and planned development schedule with milestones (NASA, 2016).
The Alaska Center for UAS has developed a promotional flyer for UAS businesses, end-user

Other Resources 79
communities, and legislative advocacy groups (University of Alaska-Fairbanks, 2015). DHS uti-
lizes fact sheets to summarize its various programs including UAS activities (DHS, n.d.). For
example, “Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS): Addressing Critical Infrastructure Security
Challenges” (DHS, 2017-a) summarizes the threats that UAS pose to critical infrastructure
and what actions can be taken to intervene in these threats.
Numerous organizations provide fact sheets for a variety of target audiences related to UAS
interests and progress. The AMA provides its members with the “Operations of Small Unmanned
Aerial Systems in the United States National Airspace System” fact sheet (AMA, n.d.-c). U.S.
DOT distributes the “UAS Integration Pilot Program White House Fact Sheet” (White House,
2017). The International Air Transport Association (IATA), provides a UAS fact sheet (IATA,
2017) summarizing the impact of UAS to safety, security, airspace efficiency, regulation, and
standards.
7.3.4 Interpersonal Engagement

7.3.4.1 Meeting/Symposium/Conference Organization
A conference is a large-scale formal gathering of persons from different walks of life, who
convene to discuss expert opinions or viewpoints on select topics, usually with a view to chart
a way forward through proposals that may go on to be published and accepted as the norm.
A symposium is also a formal gathering, but usually on a smaller scale than a conference and
normally convened by a person or larger organization to discuss matters of a topic which
largely affects those attending the meeting and often, a larger stakeholder group. The FAA UAS
Symposium is a typical example of such gathering that “provides stakeholders with the oppor-
tunity to talk face-to-face with a cross-section of government and industry representatives
about regulations, research, and initiatives to integrate unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) into
the National Airspace System (NAS)” (FAA, 2018). Such avenues provide more clarity than the
more common social media communication system in that an actual interaction can take place
and a wide range of experts can be on hand.
7.3.4.2 Short Message Services/Texting

Short Message Services (or SMSs) and texting is very common for communication among
a very wide variety of persons today. For instance, in January 2018, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency allowed San Francisco International Airport (SFO) to become the first
airport to send mass texts to any cellphone on SFO grounds (Baskas, 2018). The prevalence of
mobile devices makes this form of communication very portable and ubiquitous. These forms
of interpersonal communication have been called a hyper-personal form of interpersonal com-
munication in some quarters. This is because these forms of indirect personal communications
not only allow users to create and present a deliberate personality in communication, they also
allow an informal environment and personal expressions in ways that would otherwise be stifled
by face-to-face communication (Reid and Reid, 2004). Historically, SMS/texting was limited to
between two individuals. However, the creation of mobile applications today has created virtual
meeting rooms/forums in which larger numbers of people can discuss topics in the comfort of
their remote locations. With this form of communication, discussions can be held over a long
period of time, not geographically or time-zone limited, and the presence of particular persons
is not required for a discussion to be held. Others can join in and catch up with what they have
missed and still make contributions that are as meaningful as the contributions from those
present at the time of the active conversation. However, the amount of information that can be
passed through this channel is severely limited. Large files and some media files require other
channels of communication to be used. Additionally, the security of information communicated
through this channel cannot be overlooked. The potential for cybersecurity theft, technological

glitches, and network coverage are also factors that affect the effectiveness of communication
via SMS/texting.
7.3.4.3 Email/Postal Mail

Within the aviation community, communication with stakeholders can also be accomplished
through emails or the conventional postal mail. More often than not, postal mail could be more
official, and generally costlier. Postal mail is active but takes significantly more time. Emails
could be used in a mixed fashion of official and unofficial communication with individuals. The
use of mobile devices has made email communication more convenient, portable, and easy to
access. For significant information passage, receivers would typically have to use computers to
access information, enabling large files to be transmitted and accessed by the parties involved.
Emails/conventional mail also allow for collaborative work to be conducted only on one side at
a time. Information is usually more secure sent via traditional mail than via email.
7.3.4.4 Telephone/Teleconferencing
Telephone and telephone conferences are a means for parties to engage in verbal communi-
cation over a topic. They differ from radio or television in that there is a positive exchange of
information between parties and both or all parties can be active. Teleconferences add a benefit
in that multiple parties from different geographic locations can discuss simultaneously irrespec-
tive of time differences as well. Dependence on this form of communication can lead to gaps in
communication due to technological or network glitches. Also, the availability of interested par-
ties and access to required software (such as WebEx) is required for the success of such meetings.
Other concerns could include the security of information communicated.
7.3.4.5 Face-to-Face Meeting

In communicating with an audience especially in aviation related matters, sometimes, face-
to-face meetings with persons of influence or particular stakeholders are held to achieve certain
objectives. This usually helps when a particular individual has a means to affect certain decisions
or influence a larger audience or persons of interest. Interpersonal communication can be con-
ducted such that a local community is engaged for issues pertaining to their jurisdiction or just
a single individual with the expertise in a given area. The result is a very personal approach to
the communication process and a greater likelihood to reach conclusive discussions as opposed
to all other forms of communication.

References
Chapter 1: Introduction
FAA. (2016). FAA News Summary of Small Unmanned Aircraft Rule (Part 107). Retrieved from https://
www.faa.gov/uas/media/Part_107_Summary.pdf.
Section 2.1: Development of Concept of Operations

Terwilliger, B., Ison, D., Robbins, J., and Vincenzi, D. (2017). Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Guide:
Exploring Designs, Operations, Regulations, and Economics. Aviation Supplies and Academics, Inc,
Newcastle, Washington.
Valavanis, K., and Vachtsevanos, G. J., (2015). Handbook of Unmanned Aircraft Vehicles. Springer Reference.
Maddalon, J. M., Hayhurst, K. J., Koppen, D. M., Upcurch, J. M., Morris, A. T., and Verstynen, H. A. (2013).
Perspectives on Unmanned Aircraft Classification for Civil Airworthiness Standards. Retrieved on
August 05, 2017 from https://shemesh.larc.nasa.gov/people/jmm/NASA-TM-2013-217969.pdf.
Section 2.2: Authorization, Approval, and Notification

FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, P.L. 112-95, 112th Cong. (2012).
FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, P.L. 115-254, 115th Cong. (2018).
FAA. (2008). Sample COA application [v. 1.1]. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_
offices/ato/service_units/systemops/aaim/organizations/uas/media/COA%20Sample%20Application%20v
%201-1.pdf
FAA. (2014a, November 5). Letter to COA holders—statutory requirement to register UAS. Retrieved from https://
www.faa.gov/uas/resources/uas_regulations_policy/media/Registration_letter.pdf.
FAA. (2014b, September 10). Press release—FAA statement. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/news/press_
releases/news_story.cfm?newsid=17014.
FAA. (2014c, September 25). Public guidance for Petitions for Exemptions filed under Section 333. Retrieved
from https://www.faa.gov/uas/beyond_the_basics/section_333/how_to_file_a_petition/media/section333_
public_guidance.pdf.
FAA. (2016a, May 4). Educational use of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/
uas/resources/uas_regulations_policy/media/Interpretation-Educational-Use-of-UAS.pdf.
FAA. (2015b, September 30). Special airworthiness certificate. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/
air_cert/airworthiness_certification/sp_awcert/.
FAA. (2015a, December 17). State and local regulation of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) fact sheet. Retrieved
from https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/uas_regulations_policy/media/UAS_Fact_Sheet_Final.pdf.
FAA. (2016b, June 21). AC 107-2: Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS). Retrieved from https://www.faa.
gov/uas/media/AC_107-2_AFS-1_Signed.pdf.
FAA. (2016c, May 3). Special airworthiness certification: Certification for civil operated unmanned aircraft
systems (UAS) and optionally piloted aircraft (OPA). Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/
airworthiness_certification/sp_awcert/experiment/sac/.
FAA. (2016d, May). Blanket COA for any operator issues a valid Section 333 Grant of Exemption. Retrieved
from https://www.faa.gov/uas/beyond_the_basics/section_333/how_to_file_a_petition/media/Section-
333-Blanket-400-COA-Effective.pdf.
81

FAA. (2016e, October 31). Law enforcement engagement with suspected unauthorized UAS operations. Retrieved
from https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/law_enforcement/.
FAA. (2017a). Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) frequently asked questions. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/
uas/faqs/#top.
FAA. (2017b). Certificate of waiver or authorization. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/
headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/systemops/aaim/organizations/uas/coa/.
Florida Statute 934.50. Searches and seizure using a drone. (2017).
Moored Balloons, Kites, Amateur Rockets, Unmanned Free Balloons, and Certain Model Aircraft, 14 CFR § 101.
(2017).
Neubauer, K., Fleet, D., Grosoli, F., and Verstynen, H. (2015). ACRP Report 144: Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)
at Airports: A Primer. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, 14 CFR § 107. (2017).
Section 2.3: Privacy and Data Considerations

AUVSI. “Code of Conduct.” Retrieved from http://www.auvsi.org/code-conduct.
DeGarmo, M. T. (2004). “Issues Concerning Integration of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Civil Airspace.” MITRE
Center for Advanced Aviation System Development, McLean, VA.
Electronic Frontier Foundation. (2013). “What the Google Street View Decision Means for Researchers (and
Cops).” Retrieved from https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/09/what-google-street-view-decision-means-
researchers-and-cops.
Electronic Privacy Information Center. (2017). “Domestic Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Drones.”
Retrieved from https://epic.org/privacy/drones.
Federal Trade Commission. (2010). “Google Inquiry.” Retrieved from https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-
proceedings/closing-letters/google-inquiry.
Guardian. (2009). “Google wins Street View Privacy case.” Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/
media/2009/feb/19/google-wins-street-view-privacy-case.
Know Before You Fly. (2015). “UAS Best Practices.” Retrieved from http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/
uas-best-practices/.
NBC News. (2007). “Google hits streets, raises privacy concerns.” Retrieved from http://www.nbcnews.com/id/
18987058/ns/technology_and_science-security/t/google-hits-streets-raises-privacy-concerns/#.WYcVbtMrKF0.
NTIA (2016). “Voluntary Best Practices – NTIA,” Retrieved from https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/
voluntary_best_practices_for_uas_privacy_transparency_and_accountability_0.pdf.
Obama, B. “Presidential Memorandum: Promoting Economic Competitiveness While Safeguarding Privacy,
Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties in Domestic Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems.” The White House, Office
of the Press Secretary, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-
office/2015/02/15/presidential-memorandum-promoting-economic-competitiveness-while-safegua.
Thomson, R. M. (2015). “Domestic Drones and Privacy.” Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C.
Retrieved from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43965.pdf.
Section 2.4: Hyperlocal Restrictions

and Federal Preemption
Neubauer, K., Fleet, D., Grosoli, F., and Verstynen, H. (2015). ACRP Report 144: Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)
at Airports: A Primer. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
The Daily Courier. (2017). Man arrested for drone intrusion over Goodwin Fire. Retrieved from https://
www.dcourier.com/news/2017/jul/01/man-arrested-flying-drone-over-goodwin-fire/.
Doe v. Skinner. No. 610377. (2017). Retrieved from http://nwcrimeblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/
Sentencing-Memo.pdf.
Drone Advisory Committee. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/uas/programs_partnerships/dac/.
Ellis v. Billcliff. (2016). Wedding drone crash leads to guests’ lawsuit. Retrieved from http://www.eagletribune.com/
news/wedding-drone-crash-leads-to-guests-lawsuit/article_9bdf14d4-c3bd-11e6-87dc-0752f3c938b6.html.
FAA. (2014). Registration for commercial users. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_
story.cfm?newsId=19856&amp%3Bcid=TW378.
FAA. (2015). FAA issues fact sheet on state and local UAS laws. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/news/
updates/?newsId=84369.
FAA. (2016a). AC 91-57A with Change 1. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_
Circular/AC_91-57A_Ch_1.pdf.

References 83
FAA. (2016b). FAA Special rule for model aircraft. 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 101. Retrieved from https://
www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?rgn=div5&node=14:2.0.1.3.15 and https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/
fly_for_fun.
FAA. (2016c). Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 107. Retrieved from https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?
SID=e331c2fe611df1717386d29eee38b000&mc=true&node=pt14.2.107&rgn=div5.
FAA. (2017). FAA Air Traffic Organization Policy UAS. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/
media/Order/JO_7200.23A_Unmanned_Aircraft_Systems_(UAS).pdf.
FAA. (2018, July 20). Press Release: FAA Statement—Federal vs. Local Drone Authority. Retrieved from https://
www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=22938.
FAA. (n.d.-a). B4UFLY. Retrieved from http://www.sarahnilsson.org/drone/b4ufly/.
FAA. (n.d.-b). FAA restricts drone operations over certain military bases. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/
news/updates/?newsId=87865.
FAA. (n.d.-c). Know before you fly. Retrieved from http://knowbeforeyoufly.org.
FAA. (n.d.-d). Registration Deletion. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/registration_
deletion/.
“Judge overturns local law that effectively banned drones over small town.” (2017, September 22), ARS
Technica. Retrieved from https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/09/judge-overturns-local-law-that-
effectively-banned-drones-over-small-town/.
Pituch v. Pi Kappa Phi. (2016). Party guest sues fraternity over falling drone. Retrieved from http://dailytrojan.com/
2016/09/28/party-guest-sues-fraternity-falling-drone.
Singer v. City of Newton. 1-17-cv-10071. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/
case/20367585/Singer_v_City_of_Newton#.
Taylor v. Huerta. No. 15-1495. D.C. Circuit. (2017). Retrieved from http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-
courts/cadc/15-1495/15-1495-2017-05-19.html.
U.S. Department of the Interior. (2016). Privacy Impact Assessment. Retrieved from https://www.doi.gov/
sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/DI-4001%20Unmanned%20Aircraft%20System%20Program%20PIA%20
01.12.2016.pdf.
U.S. Department of the Interior. (n.d.). Use of UAS. Retrieved from https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/
uploads/opm-11.pdf.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2015). UAS Policy Guidance. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/
department-justice-establishes-policy-guidance-domestic-use-unmanned-aircraft-systems.
U.S. Forest Service. (n.d.-a). Drone Policy. Retrieved from https://www.fs.fed.us/science-technology/fire/
unmanned-aircraft-systems.
U.S. Forest Service. (n.d.-b). Tips for responsible hobby or recreational use of UAS on National Forest
Systems Lands. Retrieved from https://www.fs.fed.us/science-technology/fire/unmanned-aircraft-systems/
responsible-use.
U.S. National Park Service. (n.d.). UAS policy. Retrieved from https://www.nps.gov/orgs/aviationprogram/
unmanned-aircraft-systems.htm.
Section 3.1: Safety Management Systems

APTA. (2016). “Safety Management System Manual – Public Passenger Transportation Systems.” American
Public Transportation Association. Retrieved from https://www.apta.com/resources/safetyandsecurity/
Documents/3-15-16%20%20APTA%20Safety%20Management%20System%20Manual%20(without%20
appendices).docx.
Clothier, R., and Walker, R. (2014). “The Safety Risk Management of Unmanned Aircraft Systems.” In Handbook
of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Springer Science and Business Media B.V., Dordrecht, Netherlands.
FAA. (2007). AC 150/5200-37-Introduction to Safety Management Systems (SMS) for Airport Opera-
tors. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/advisory_circular/150-5200-37/
150_5200_37.pdf.
FAA. (2010). FAA Order 5200.11: FAA Airport (ARP) Safety Management System. Retrieved from https://
www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/order_5200_11_arp_sms.pdf.
FAA. (2015). AC 120-92B: Safety Management Systems for Aviation Service Providers. Washington, D.C.
FAA. (2017a). “External SMS Efforts—Part 139 Rulemaking: Documentation from Airport SMS Pilot Studies.”
Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/safety_management_systems/external/pilot_
studies/documentation/.
FAA. (2017b). “Safety Management Systems.” Retrieved from http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/sms/.
FAA. (2017c). “System Safety Handbook.” Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/
handbooks_manuals/aviation/risk_management/ss_handbook/.

FAA. (2017d). “Safety Management System Manual.” Retrieved from: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/

media/ATO-SMS-Manual.pdf.
FAA. (2017e). “Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Facility Maps Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs).” https://
www.faa.gov/uas/request_waiver/uas_facility_maps/faq/.
FAA and Eurocontrol. (2007). “FAA/EUROCONTROL ATM Safety Techniques and Toolbox,” Retrieved
from https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/risk_management/
ss_handbook/.
ICAO. (2005). ICAO Annex 14, Chapter 18, “Manual on Certification of Aerodromes Safety Management
Manual.”
ICAO. (2009). “Safety Risk Manual (SMM),” Doc 9859. Retrieved from http://www.icao.int/safety/Safety
Management/Documents/Doc.9859.3rd%20Edition.alltext.en.pdf.
Ludwig, D. A., Andrews, C. R., Jester-ten Veen, N. R., and Laqui, C. (2007). ACRP Report 1: Safety Management
Systems for Airports, Volume 1: Overview. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Ludwig, D. A., Andrews, C. R., Jester-ten Veen, N. R., and Laqui, C. (2009). ACRP Report 1: Safety Management
Systems for Airports, Volume 2: Guidebook. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Landry, J., Dave Fleet Consulting, LLC, and Hybrid-3, Inc. (2012). ACRP Synthesis 37: Lessons Learned from
Airport Safety Management Pilot Studies. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Wackwitz, K. and Boedecker, H. (2015). “Safety Risk Assessment for UAV Operation.” Drone Industry Insights,
Hamburg, Germany.
Section 3.2: UAS Contingency Management

Fern, L., Rorie, R. C., and Shively, R. (2014). UAS Contingency Management: The Effect of Different Procedures
on ATC in Civil Airspace Operations. 14th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations
Conference. doi:10.2514/6.2014-2414.
Section 3.3: Guidance for Emergency Plans

for UAS Operations at Airports
ACRP. (n.d.). “ACRP 04-19 Airport Emergency Planning Template: NIMS—Incident Command System
Compliance.” Retrieved from http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=3845.
Airport Emergency Plan, 14 CFR § 139.325. (2017).
FAA. (2009). AC 150/5200-31C: Airport Emergency Plan. Washington D.C.
FAA. (2017). FAA Order 7100.65X: Air Traffic Control. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/
media/Order/JO_7110.65X_Air_Traffic_Control.pdf.
FAA. (n.d.-a). “FAA Form 7711-1 UAS COA—Blanket COA for any Operator issued a valid Section 333 Grant
of Exemption.” Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/uas/beyond_the_basics/section_333/how_to_file_a_
petition/media/Section-333-Blanket-400-COA-Effective.pdf.
FAA. (2016). FAA Notice JO 7110.724: Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Lost Link. Washington, D.C.
FAA. (n.d.-b). “Report an Accident (Part 107) Small Unmanned Aircraft System (sUAS).” Retrieved from
https://www.faa.gov/uas/report_accident/.
FAA. (n.d.-c). “Airport Emergency Plan Checklist.” Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/airports/great_lakes/
airports_resources/certification_bulletin_archive/media/10-06-attachment.pdf.
The Guardian (2016). “Heathrow plane strike ‘not a drone incident’.” Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.
com/technology/2016/apr/28/heathrow-ba-plane-strike-not-a-drone-incident.
Immediate Notification, Title 49 CFR § 830.5 (2017).
New Hampshire DOT. (n.d.). “Airport Emergency Plan Template.” Retrieved from https://www.nh.gov/dot/org/
aerorailtransit/aeronautics/documents/AirportEmergencyPlanTemplateTool.doc.
Chapter 4
FAA. (2013a). System Safety Handbook. Retrieved from www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/
aviation/risk_management/ss_handbook/.
FAA. (2013b). Safety Risk Management. Retrieved from www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/
aviation/risk_management/.

References 85
FAA. (2017). FAA Order 8040.4B: Safety Risk Management Policy. Retrieved from www.faa.gov/document
Library/media/Order/8040.4B%20.pdf.
Air Safety Institute. (2017). “Safety Advisor: Operations & Proficiency No.3.” Retrieved from https://www.
faasafety.gov/files/notices/2017/Jun/Non-Tower_Airport_Comms.pdf.
FAA. (2017a). AC 60-22—Aeronautical Decision Making. Retrieved from www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/
advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/22624.
FAA. (2017b). UAS Facility Maps: Class E Surface UASFM: Bacon County Airport (AMG). Retrieved from https://
www.faa.gov/uas/request_waiver/uas_facility_maps/media/Class_E_UASFM.pdf.
FAA. (2017c). Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Facility Maps Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). Retrieved
from https://www.faa.gov/uas/request_waiver/uas_facility_maps/faq/.
Gettinger, D., and Michel, A. (2015). Drone Sightings and Close Encounters: An Analysis. Center for the Study
of the Drone at Bard College. Retrieved from http://dronecenter.bard.edu/files/2015/12/12-11-Drone-
Sightings-and-Close-Encounters.pdf.
Chapters 5 to 7
AMA. (2014). Academy of Model Aeronautics National Model Aircraft Safety Code. Retrieved from http://
www.modelaircraft.org/files/105.pdf.
AMA. (n.d.-a). Model Aviation Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.modelaircraft.org/publications/ma.aspx.
AMA. (n.d.-b). AMA Today. Retrieved from http://www.modelaircraft.org/publications/AMA_Today.aspx.
AMA. (n.d.-c). Operations of Small Unmanned Aerial Systems in the United States National Airspace System.
Retrieved from http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/NASchart.pdf.
ACRP. (n.d.). Reports and Resources by the Airport Cooperative Research Program. Retrieved from https://
www.nap.edu/author/ACRP/transportation-research-board/airport-cooperative-research-program.
AAAE. (n.d.-a). Hearing Reports. Retrieved from https://www.aaae.org/AAAE/AAAEMemberResponsive/
Advocacy/ALA/Hearing_Reports/Hearing_Reports_Public.aspx.
AAAE. (n.d.-b). Press Releases. Retrieved from https://www.aaae.org/aaae/AAAEMBR/About/Press_Releases/
AAAEMemberResponsive/Press_Releases/Press_Releases.aspx?hkey=4c363ce3-f841-4e0b-8c4e-3f1ebc2a883d.
AIAA. (n.d.-a). Key Issues. Retrieved from https://www.aiaa.org/KeyIssues/.
AIAA. (n.d.-b). Policy Papers. Retrieved from https://www.aiaa.org/PolicyPapers/.
AIAA. (n.d.-c). Aerospace Research Center. Retrieved from: http://arc.aiaa.org.
AIAA. (n.d.-d). Testimony and Speeches. Retrieved from: https://www.aiaa.org/testimony/.
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. (2018). Pilot Information Center Podcast. Retrieved from https://
www.aopa.org/news-and-media/podcasts/pilot-information-center-podcast.
AUVSI. (2013). Economic Report. Retrieved from http://www.auvsi.org/our-impact/economic-report.
AUVSI. (2018). AUVSI—Home. Retrieved from http://www.auvsi.net/home.
AUVSI. (n.d.-a). Part 107 Waivers. Retrieved from http://www.auvsi.org/our-impact/waivers-under-part-107-
interactive-report.
AUVSI. (n.d.-b). Strategic Plan. Retrieved from http://www.auvsi.org/who-we-are/strategic-plan.
AUVSI. (n.d.-c). Publication Library. Retrieved from http://www.auvsi.org/magazines-library.
AUVSI. (n.d.-d). AUVSI Press Releases. Retrieved from http://www.auvsi.org/industry-news/auvsi-press-releases.
Baskas, H. (2018, January 16). SFO first airport OK’d to send emergency alerts to any cellphone on site. USA
Today. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2018/01/16/sfo-first-
airport-okd-fema-send-alerts-any-cellphone-site/1035706001/.
Cifuentes, L. (2014, January 27). FAA UAS Test Site Designation. Retrieved from http://lsuasc.tamucc.edu/
assets/Cifuentes%20LSUASC_Arlingon_V1.pdf.
Cable News Network. (n.d.). Pathfinder Focus Area 1: Operations Over People. Retrieved from https://
conferences.ll.mit.edu/atc/sites/default/files/0900-Rumberger-MITLL%20FAA%20Pathfinder%20FA1.pdf.
Daytona Beach International Airport. (n.d.). News Releases. Retrieved from http://www.flydaytonafirst.com/
about-dab/news-releases.stml.
DHS. (2015-a). Unmanned Systems in Homeland Security. Retrieved from http://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/
s3fs-public/151216_Unmanned_Systems.pdf.
DHS. (2015-b). Best Practices for Protecting Privacy, Civil Rights & Civil Liberties In Unmanned Aircraft
Systems Programs. Retrieved from https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/UAS%20Best%20
Practices.pdf.
DHS. (2017-a). Addressing Critical Infrastructure Security Challenges. Retrieved from https://www.dhs.gov/
sites/default/files/publications/uas-ci-challenges-fact-sheet-508.pdf.
DHS. (2017-b). Counter-Unmanned Aerial Systems—Market Survey Report. Retrieved from https://www.dhs.
gov/sites/default/files/SAVER_Counter-Unmanned-Aerial-Systems-MSR_0917-508.pdf.

DHS. (n.d.). Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Fact Sheets. Retrieved from https://www.dhs.gov/publication/
uas-fact-sheets.
Dunn, J. (2017). Facebook totally dominates the list of most popular social media apps. Business Insider. Retrieved
from http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-dominates-most-popular-social-media-apps-chart-2017-7.
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. (n.d.). sUAS Consumer Guide. Retrieved from https://uasguide.erau.edu/.
FAA. (2005). AC 150/5070-6B—Airport Master Plans Document Information. Retrieved from https://www.faa.
gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/22329.
FAA. (2007). U.S. Department of Transportation. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/
advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.list?omni=ACs&q=150%2F5070-6B&display=current&parent
TopicID=0&documentNumber=150%2F5070-6B.
FAA. (2014, June 18). Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/
uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf.
FAA. (2015-a). Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Registration Task Force (RTF) Aviation Rulemaking Com-
mittee (ARC): Task Force Recommendations Final Report. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/uas/
resources/event_archive/media/RTFARCFinalReport_11-21-15.pdf.
FAA. (2015-b). Aircraft Registration Records System of Records Notice. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/
news/updates/media/151213_SORN.pdf.
FAA. (2016-a). Pilot Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/regulations_
policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/phak/media/pilot_handbook.pdf.
FAA. (2016-b). Educational Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/uas/
resources/uas_regulations_policy/media/Interpretation-Educational-Use-of-UAS.pdf.
FAA. (2016-c). Micro Unmanned Aircraft Systems Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC): ARC Recommen-
dations Final Report. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/event_archive/media/Micro-UAS-
ARC-FINAL-Report.pdf.
FAA. (2016-d). Remote Pilot—Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Airman Certification Standards. Retrieved
from https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/acs/media/uas_acs.pdf.
FAA. (2016-e). Summary of Small Unmanned Aircraft Rule (Part 107). Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/uas/
media/Part_107_Summary.pdf.
FAA. (2016-f). AC 107-2: Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS). Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/
uas/media/AC_107-2_AFS-1_Signed.pdf.
FAA. (2016-g). Remote Pilot—Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Study Guide. Retrieved from https://www.faa.
gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/media/remote_pilot_study_guide.pdf.
FAA. (2017-a). UAS Identification and Tracking (UAS ID) Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC): ARC
Recommendations Final Report. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/
committees/documents/media/UAS%20ID%20ARC%20Final%20Report%20with%20Appendices.pdf.
FAA. (2017-b). UAG Sample Exam. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/test_questions/
media/uag_sample_exam.pdf.
FAA. (2018). UAS Symposium. Retrieved from http://faa2018.auvsi.net/program/agenda.
FAA. (n.d.-a). How to Label Your Drone. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/register_
drone/media/UAS_how_to_label_Infographic.pdf.
FAA. (n.d.-b). Law Enforcement Reference Card. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/law_
enforcement/media/FAA-UAS-DRONE-LE-ReferenceCard.pdf.
IATA. (2017, December). Fact Sheet: Unmanned Aircraft Systems. Retrieved from https://www.iata.org/pressroom/
facts_figures/fact_sheets/Documents/fact-sheet-unmanned-aicraft-systems.pdf.
ICAO. (2018). ICAO Safety. Retrieved from https://www4.icao.int/uastoolkit/home/about.
ICAO. (n.d.). UAS Toolkit. Retrieved from https://www4.icao.int/uastoolkit/home/about.
Skybrary.aero. (2016, July 11). Skybrary Aviation Safety. Retrieved from https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/
Federal_Aviation_Administration_(FAA).
Neubauer, K., Fleet, D., Grosoli, F., and Verstynen, H. (2015). ACRP Report 144: Unmanned Aircraft Systems
(UAS) at Airports: A Primer. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (2016, September 6). UTM: Air Traffic Management for
Low-Altitude Drones. Retrieved from https://utm.arc.nasa.gov/docs/utm-factsheet-09-06-16.pdf.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (n.d.). UTM: Documents. Retrieved from https://utm.arc.nasa.
gov/documents.shtml.
Precision Hawk. (2016, July 25). Precision Hawk’s FAA Pathfinder Phase 1 EVLOS Report. Retrieved from http://
www.precisionhawk.com/media/topic/precisionhawk-release-phase-1/.
Port of Seattle. (n.d.). News Room. Retrieved from https://www.portseattle.org/Newsroom/News-Releases/Pages/
default.aspx.
Philadelphia International Airport. (n.d.). Press Releases. Retrieved from https://www.phl.org/Pages/Press-
Releases.aspx.

References 87
Reid, F. J. M., and Reid, D. J. (2004). Text Appeal: The Psychology of SMS Texting and Its Implications for the
Design of Mobile Phone Interfaces. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 21(5), 196–200. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/218070503?accountid=27203.
Terwilliger, B., Ison, D., Robbins, J., and Vincenzi, D. (2017). Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Guide: Explor-
ing Designs, Operations, Regulations, and Economics. Aviation Supplies and Academics, Inc., Newcastle,
Washington.
Twitter. (2018). FAA Twitter Page. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/FAANews?lang=en.
University of Alaska-Fairbanks. (2015, March 25). Unmanned Aircraft Systems in the Arctic. Retrieved from
https://www.uaf.edu/finserv/omb/legislative-advocacy/ACUASI_3.23.15_FINAL-w-Hilites.pdf.
U.S. Government Publishing Office. (n.d.-a). Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. Retrieved from http://
www.ecfr.gov.
U.S. Government Publishing Office. (n.d.-b). Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: Title 14 Aeronautics and
Space. Retrieved from https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14tab_02.tpl.
The White House. (2017). UAS Integration Pilot Program Fact Sheet. Retrieved from https://www.transportation.
gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/briefing-room/288091/uas-integration-pilot-program-fact-sheet.pdf.
Wolf, H. G. (2017). Drones: Safety Risk Management for the Next Evolution of Flight. Routledge, New York.
Valdovinos, M., Specht, J., and Zeunik, J. (2016). Community Policing & Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)
Guidelines to Enhance Community Trust. Retrieved from https://www.policefoundation.org/wp-content/
uploads/2016/11/UAS-Report.pdf.
Young, R. (2017, April). Multi-Sensor Fusion for UAS Ground-Based Detect and Avoid Capability. Inter
national Control, Navigation, and Surveillance Conference, Herndon, Virginia. Retrieved from https://
doi.org/10.1109/ICNSURV.2017.8011907.
YouTube. (2014). Know Before You Fly. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF5Q9JvBhxM.


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 978-0-309-48147-2
COLUMBIA, MD
PERMIT NO. 88
U.S. POSTAGE
90000
PAID
9 780309 481472

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/25599 SHARE

Airports and Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Volume 1: Managing

96 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 1: Managing and

Booz Allen Hamilton

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Research sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 212, VOLUME 1

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 1

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 Understanding the Requirements to Manage

22 Chapter 3 Safety and Emergency Management Best Practices

34 Chapter 4 Visual Risk Assessment Map and Factors

45 Chapter 5 Engagement and Communication Tools

56 Chapter 6 Case Studies

68 Chapter 7 Other Resources

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

1.2 Overview of Airport Management of UAS Operations

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

2 Airports and Unmanned Aircraft Systems

1.3 Guidebook Audience and Format

1.4 How to Use This Guidebook

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Understanding the Requirements

2.1 Development of Concept of Operations

2.1.1 System Architecture

2.1.2 Operational Plan

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

4 Airports and Unmanned Aircraft Systems

Table 1. Elements of system architecture for UAS CONOPS.

At a minimum, the objective of a CONOPS includes the seamless integration of the

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Understanding the Requirements to Manage UAS Operations 5

2.1.3 Personnel Certification Requirements

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

6 Airports and Unmanned Aircraft Systems

2.1.4 Key Resources

• Handbook of Unmanned Aircraft Vehicles (Valavanis and Vachtsevanos, 2015), a multi-

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Understanding the Requirements to Manage UAS Operations 7

2.2 Authorization, Approval, and Notification

2.2.1 Model Aircraft

Figure 1. Definition of recreational use of UAS

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

8 Airports and Unmanned Aircraft Systems

Figure 2. 14 CFR § 101 compliant and non-compliant UAS

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

3 Chapter 2 Understanding the Requirements to Manage