Section 334 of the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act required that the FAA “develop and implement operational and certification requirements for the operation of public unmanned aircraft systems in the national airspace system.” Since late 2015, I’ve been pestering the FAA public affairs office, to see if/when this congressional mandate would be met. I believe they just met the operational portion, with this “Advisory Circular”, issued in September:
It officially replaces this 2014 Advisory Circular. Can you spot the difference?
“Public” aircraft, manned or unmanned, are basically any aircraft operated by a government entity. (“Civil” aircraft is everything else). The principle govt. entities operating “public unmanned aircraft systems,” or drones, are the various branches of the US military. For years, the ability to fly their Predators, Reapers, etc. wherever they want in the NAS, has been the holy grail for some in the Pentagon. And the only thing standing in their way has been the FAA. The DoD and the FAA have been in this awkward dance together for over 20 years. They’re ordered by Congress to work together, and that lasts for a while — sometimes there’s progress, but never fast enough for the DoD. For example, in the 2009 Defense Budget, the Pentagon (or at least, their congressional supporters) called this lack of progress “a threat to national security.”
Whoa! Tough words. That legislation went on to create “a joint Department of Defense–Federal Aviation Administration executive committee on conflict and dispute resolution”. You don’t do that unless there had already been a history of conflict and disputes. (Over the several years I’ve been looking into this, I’ve heard rumors of an outright brawl between FAA engineers and DoD officials. It supposedly had to do with the DoD’s insistence that the new NextGen air traffic control system be designed to accommodate military drones, a nasty surprise to the FAA. But that’s another story...)
Back to that “pestering” of the FAA public affairs office. I didn't initially go to the chief spokesman at FAA - the first person I talked to at the FAA public affairs office literally said this to me: "To the best of my knowledge, THERE IS NO SECTION 334." When I assured him that it did in fact exist, because I was staring right at it on FAA.gov, he said, "Can you copy and paste that & email it to me?" I couldn't believe what I was hearing. (A week later, I was quoted in an International Business Times article: “If I had been drinking milk, I would have blown it out my nose at that point”.)
He referred me to his superior, and she said, "Oh, you must mean Section 332. We're preparing to issue the small UAS rule in the coming months." I gritted my teeth and insisted that I knew what I was asking about, and it wasn't 332, it was 334. She said she would have to refer me to HER boss. Once I got in touch with him, he told me that I was the only person to ever ask about Section 334 of the 2012 FAA Act, in the four years since it had been drafted. (Can he have been telling the truth? How in the world is that possible?) Anyway, he finally confirmed that yes, they were working on an AC that would respond to the mandate in 334, but that it was in “Executive Review”. That was over three years ago. I’m assuming that this is it — waiting for confirmation…
So, to recap the past year:
April 27, 2018. The US House of Representatives passes the 2018 FAA Act, and sends it to the Senate. Section 723 orders the FAA to conduct a “probabilistic assessment of risk” on public unmanned aircraft systems operating in the national airspace system. Translation: how likely is it that one of these big bastards is gonna kill somebody? The next section orders FAA to conduct “comprehensive testing of unmanned aerial vehicles colliding with a manned aircraft” up to and including “commercial jet airliners.” It will never be brought up in the Senate.
August 18, 2018. Secretary of Defense James Mattis signs the DoD’s “Guidance for the Domestic Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems in U.S. National Airspace.” (It doesn’t appear to have been released to the public until November 5th.)
September 21, 2018. FAA issues their AC on Public Aircraft Operations — Manned and Unmanned.
September 26, 2018. The Senate takes up their own version of the 2018 FAA Act. It has none of the risk assessment and collision testing sections from the House version.
October 5, 2018. Trump signs the 2018 FAA Act.
November 5, 2018. DoD releases the “Guidance for the Domestic Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems in U.S. National Airspace.”
November 28, 2018. General Atomics announces that they have received a “Special Airworthiness Certification in the Experimental Category” from the FAA for their newest Predator-variant, the SkyGuardian, to operate in domestic airspace.
“The certification helps us towards our goal of full integration of RPA into the National Airspace System [NAS],” said David R. Alexander, president, Aircraft Systems, GA-ASI. “It will also help us in continuing the development of MQ-9B for our customers, the Royal Air Force and Belgian Defense.”
Hey, that’s interesting. Operating the SkyGuardian in US domestic airspace, will “help” General Atomics sales overseas. And apparently, they need help:
January 27, 2019. General Atomics is having a tough time convincing the UK’s Ministry of Defence that their critical ‘detect-and-avoid’ technology really works. The Brits bought the ̶S̶k̶y̶G̶u̶a̶r̶d̶i̶a̶n ̶S̶c̶a̶v̶e̶n̶g̶e̶r Protector drones in 2016, but did not shell out for the DAA tech. This would not allow Protector to operate in British domestic airspace.
Jones said the delay in contracting for the capability was because “we wished to better understand the technology.”
General Atomics had to lobby Parliament directly, and suddenly the MoD is willing to take another look at it. Did having the US as a ‘test bed’ have anything to do with it?
Giddy Up!
UPDATE: The UK-based Dronewars.net has an amazing set of FOIA’d emails about the discussion among various UK entities, trying to figure out how they will integrate the SkyGuardian/Protector into UK airspace. The Ministry of Defense (MOD), Civil Aviation Administration (CAA) and others were clearly in a state of confusion, and this was 2016 — AFTER they had already agreed to purchase 16 of the Protectors. One email thread was very interesting — “FAA Support to PROTECTOR” — included addressees at the FAA and US Air Force.