• FAA Proposes Rule To Require Remote Identification Of Drones (12/19)

    From Larry Dighera@21:1/5 to All on Fri Dec 27 05:53:15 2019
    [continued from previous message]

    persons operating UAS at FAArecognized identification areas under §
    XIX. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses.
    First, Executive
    Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct that each Federal agency
    shall propose or adopt a
    regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the
    intended regulation justify
    its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L.
    96-354) requires agencies to
    analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities.
    Third, the Trade
    Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create
    unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S.
    standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international
    standards and, where
    appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the
    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written
    assessment of the costs, benefits,
    and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal
    mandate likely to result in the
    expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate,
    or by the private sector, of
    $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year
    of 1995). The FAA has
    provided a more detailed Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis of
    this proposed rule in the
    docket of this rulemaking. This portion of the preamble summarizes
    this analysis.
    In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this
    proposed rule: (1) has
    benefits that justify its costs; (2) is not an economically
    “significant regulatory action” as defined
    in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866; (3) will have a significant
    economic impact on a
    substantial number of small entities; (4) will not create unnecessary
    obstacles to the foreign
    commerce of the United States; and (5) will not impose an unfunded
    mandate on state, local, or
    tribal governments, or on the private sector by exceeding the
    threshold identified above.
    A. Regulatory Evaluation
    1. Key Assumptions and Data Sources
    The FAA’s analysis of the proposed rule is based on findings from the
    Aircraft Systems Identification and Tracking Aviation Rulemaking
    Committee (UAS-ID ARC),
    as well as data and information from the FAA and industry
    stakeholders. The analysis for the
    regulatory evaluation is based on the following assumptions and data
    A. Retrofits
    An important assumption used in this analysis involves the
    availability of retrofits. Based
    on information from UAS producers81, part of the existing fleet of UAS
    could be retrofit to
    comply with remote identification requirements with relative ease and
    minimal cost (e.g., by a
    software update or “push” through the internet) and this could be
    achieved within the first year
    after the effective date of the final rule given the availability of FAA-accepted means of
    compliance.82 This would enable early compliance with remote
    identification for persons
    operating a portion of the existing UAS fleet and those UAS purchased
    during the proposal’s 24-
    month period before compliance with production requirements.
    Based on industry information and market research, the FAA estimates
    at least 93% of
    the current part 107 fleet and at least 20% of the current
    recreational fleet would be eligible for

    81 The FAA received information from industry on the potential to
    retrofit during Executive Order 12866 meetings
    from September through December, 2019. Information from these meetings
    will be available in the docket of this
    rulemaking. Under Executive Order 12866, OIRA meets on regulatory
    actions with any interested party to discuss
    issues on a rule under review. Under OIRA procedures, the OIRA
    Administrator or his/her designee meets with
    outside parties during a review and the subject, date, and
    participants of the meeting are publicly disclosed on
    Reginfo.gov along with any written materials received from outside
    parties on rules under review
    82 Producers of UAS with Remote ID, including those that retrofit,
    would be required to meet proposed performance
    standards using an FAA-accepted means of compliance for remote
    retrofits, thus minimizing the costs for operators and producers.83
    This is based on industry
    information suggesting that small UAS at a certain level of design specification and operational
    capability would likely have system and connectivity capabilities that
    could be retrofit through a
    software update.
    The FAA reviewed UAS registered to part 107 operators and found 93% of
    the existing
    part 107 UAS fleet may have technical capabilities to be retrofit
    based on information received
    by industry (i.e., could support software updates through internet).84
    The FAA identified the top10 registered aircraft by producer and
    researched registered model specifications online. The
    FAA found each of the registered models within this group had internet
    and Wi-Fi connectivity,
    ability to transmit data, receive software uploads, and had radio
    frequency transceivers, among
    other technology such as advanced microprocessors. Figure 1 provides
    the breakdown of
    manufacturers of registered part 107 UAS that could retrofit
    representing 93% of part 107
    registered UAS fleet.
    Figure 1. Part 107 Unmanned Aircraft Registrations by
    % Share of
    % Share

    83 Assuming retrofits can be made under an FAA-accepted means of
    compliance, some producers would not need to
    delay compliance. Retrofits may indicate producers need less
    modification of existing UAS models to comply with
    the proposal. In addition, the availability of retrofits would
    minimize impacts for some operators of UAS purchased
    without remote identification equipment who would otherwise need to
    upgrade or buy a new UAS equipped for
    Remote ID, especially those operated under part 107 for commercial
    purposes that would not receive any
    commercial value or benefit from operating at an FAA-recognized
    identification area.
    84 This is 93% of the part 107 “consumer” grade aircraft could be
    retrofit. Additionally, the FAA assumes the entire
    fleet of part 107 “professional” grade UAS could be retrofit.
    -- Part 107
    DJI 252,678 78.1% 78.1%
    Intel 13,147 4.1% 82.2%
    Yuneec 9,725 3.0% 85.2%
    Parrot 7,928 2.5% 87.7%
    GoPro 5,980 1.8% 89.5%
    3dr 4,687 1.4% 91.0%
    Holy Stone 2,580 0.8% 91.8%
    Autel 2,677 0.8% 92.6%
    Hubsan 1,278 0.4% 93.0%
    Kespry 1,143 0.4% 93.3%
    Source: FAA, Part 107 UAS Registrations, October 2019 point-in-time

    The FAA has limited information on the manufacturers and types of UAS
    in the
    recreation fleet because part 48 registration currently allows limited recreational flyers to register
    multiple small unmanned aircraft under a single Certificate of
    Aircraft Registration. However,
    published market information finds 36% of the North America fleet is manufactured by one
    producer (DJI)
    85 that provided information to the FAA suggesting they could
    retrofit. The FAA
    estimates that about 20% of the recreational fleet is comprised of
    aircraft manufactured by DJI
    that could be retrofit. This estimate was developed by multiplying the
    combined part 107 and
    recreational unmanned aircraft fleet by 36%, and then subtracting DJI
    aircraft registered under
    part 107.

    85 Source: 2017 Skylogic Research, a firm tracking the drone industry
    found 36% of the units sold in North America
    in the $500 to $1000 range are manufactured by DJI ( https://www.vox.com/2017/4/14/14690576/drone-marketshare-growth-charts-dji-forecast).
    For purposes of this analysis, the 36 percent is used as a proxy for
    the share of DJI
    units in the U.S. fleet.
    86 The FAA made the following calculations to estimate the portion of
    the modeler fleet that are DJI: (i) Multiplied
    the year 1 combined UAS sales forecast developed for the proposed rule
    by 36 percent to estimate the number of
    DJI units sold for recreational and part 107 purposes during year 1;
    (ii) Multiplied the year 1 part 107 sales forecast
    by 71% to estimate portion of part 107 sales that were DJI; and, (iii) Subtracted “b” from “a” to estimate year 1
    Therefore, the FAA assumes UAS purchased in year 1 that are retrofit
    would allow the
    aircraft to “continue flying” under the limited or standard remote identification requirements
    after the compliance date of the final rule. UAS sold in year 1 that
    could not be retrofit would
    likely not meet the limited or standard remote identification
    requirements after year 3. Persons
    that own unmanned aircraft in this group of “legacy” UAS without
    remote identification
    equipment would have potential “loss of use” associated impacts since
    this proposal does not
    include grandfathering.
    87 The retrofit assumptions above were used in this analysis to
    the effects of retrofits on the costs of the proposal and its
    compliance period.
    The FAA requests comments on the capability of retrofits to meet the
    proposed remote
    identification requirements. Specifically, the FAA requests
    information and data from producers
    of affected UAS in response to the following questions that can be
    used to inform this analysis.
    Please provide references and sources for information and data.
    ? As a producer of UAS affected by this proposal, would you be able to
    retrofit your
    current UAS models to comply with the proposed rule given the
    availability of FAAaccepted means of compliance?
    ? Do you have information that would assist in the early development
    of means of
    compliance that would be available for retrofits for the following
    scenarios a) before the
    effective date of the final rule, which is 60 days after the
    publication date of the final rule,
    and b) within one year after effective date of the final rule?

    recreational sales of DJI units. Based on these calculations, DJI
    recreational units sold in year 1 accounted for about
    20% of the recreational units sold in year 1.
    87 Persons operating UAS without remote identification equipment would
    always be required to operate within
    visual line of sight and within an FAA-recognized identification area.
    Persons operating UAS without remote
    identification equipment would need to travel and incur costs of
    operating within an FAA-recognized identification
    ? Would it be possible to retrofit by a software or firmware update
    through an internet
    ? How would a retrofit solution meet the proposed tamper resistance
    and labelling
    requirements? Would a software push be able to meet requirements for
    tamper resistance
    or would it require hardware? How would you meet labelling
    requirements under a
    retrofit scenario (e.g., would you mail the label)?
    ? Would retrofits meet the limited or standard remote identification requirements?
    ? What are the costs of retrofits to the producer and the
    ? In lieu of a software push through the internet, what other methods
    could producers use to
    facilitate retrofits (e.g., mail-in programs or physical retrofit
    drop-off locations)?
    ? If retrofits are not an option for certain makes and models, would
    you offer operators
    “buy-back” or “trade-in” incentives to replace UAS without remote identification
    equipment? If so, please describe the incentive and the process.
    ? The FAA also solicits comments on the capability of producers of UAS
    weighing greater
    than 55 pounds to retrofit aircraft to be compliant with remote
    B. Period of Analysis & Valuation of Impacts
    ? The analysis uses 2019 constant dollars. Year 1 of the period of
    analysis, which would
    correlate with the effective date of the final rule, is used as the
    base year.
    ? The FAA uses a ten-year time period of analysis to capture the
    effects of the proposed
    compliance period and recurring effects of the proposed rule.
    ? The analysis includes the proposed two-year phase-in period for
    compliance by persons
    responsible for the production of UAS from the effective date of the
    rule. Operators have
    one additional year beyond this compliance date to comply with the
    provisions of the
    final rule.
    ? The FAA uses a three percent and seven percent discount rate to
    quantify present value
    costs and cost savings as prescribed by OMB in Circular A-4.89
    C. Affected UAS Fleet/Characteristics
    ? The analysis of costs and cost savings of this proposed rule are
    based on the fleet forecast
    for small unmanned aircraft as published in the FAA Aerospace Forecast 2019-2039.
    The forecast includes base, low, and high scenarios. The analysis
    provides a range of net
    impacts from low to high based on these forecast scenarios. The FAA
    considers the
    primary estimate of net impacts of the proposed rule to be the base
    ? Based on the FAA fleet forecast for small unmanned aircraft, the FAA estimates the
    average number of aircraft owned by each part 107 operator to be 2.4
    and the average
    number owned by each recreational flyer to be 1.4 aircraft. The FAA
    assumes the average
    lifespan for unmanned aircraft operated by these two groups is three
    years based on FAA

    88 The FAA typically uses a five-year time period for Regulatory
    Impact Analysis of UAS rulemakings to align with
    historical and current FAA UAS Forecasts (see https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/media/Unmanned_Aircraft_Systems.pdf).
    addition, the FAA acknowledges uncertainty in estimating incremental
    impacts of this proposed rule beyond five
    years due to rapid changes in UAS technology and innovation.
    89 OMB Circular A-4, Regulatory Analysis (2003), https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf. 90 FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years 2019-2039 at 30-33, available
    at http://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/media/FY2019-39_FAA_Aerospace_Forecast.pdf
    research related to the its annual aerospace forecast, UAS
    registration information,
    information from recreational and model unmanned aircraft owners, and
    a review of
    ? The FAA assumes members of a nationwide community based organization
    own, on
    average, two aircraft92, which may have an average lifespan that
    exceeds ten years. As a
    result, members of a nationwide community-based organization may not
    incur the same
    pattern of maintenance and replacement costs as other recreational
    D. Producers (Manufacturers)
    ? Based on the FAA part 48 unmanned aircraft registry, the FAA
    estimates that 83 percent
    of small unmanned aircraft sold in the United States are produced by
    foreign entities.

    91 A review of articles and papers further supports an average
    three-year lifespan for a small UAS. The review found
    life expectancy is influenced by many factors, such as flight
    conditions, frequency of use, and quality of
    maintenance. Lifespan is also affected by rapid advances in
    technology, which can result in “planned obsolescence”
    of older UAS models due to manufacturers advancing new capabilities
    that drive consumer satisfaction and demand
    at additional costs. UAS lifespan is expected to last similar to other
    consumer electronics within the same price
    range. In the United States, smart phones are replaced after 32
    months, on average, while laptops have an average
    lifespan of 2-4 years (see the 2018 NPD Mobile Connectivity Report; https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/news/press-releases/2018/the-average-upgrade-cycle-of-a-smartphone-inthe-u-s--is-32-months---according-to-npd-connected-intelligence/).
    Other information published by the European
    Union Aviation Safety Agency (“EASA”; https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/GTF%20- %20Report_Issue2.pdf#page=93&zoom=100,0,13. p.47), the Civil Aviation
    Authority of Israel (https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-proposals-drawn-up-for-regulating-drones-in-israel-1001270656),
    and academia
    (see for example, http://eng.fau.edu/research/fmri/pdf/Y1R1-17_Final_figliozzi.pdf, p.
    34), suggests the range is
    probably one year to three years, with EASA suggesting a span of one
    to four years.
    92 The FAA has heard that the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) has a membership of about 200,000 and each
    member has nine aircraft on average. This would equate to a 1,800,000
    AMA Fleet. The FAA plans to reach out to
    the AMA to confirm the average number of unique aircraft owned by its
    members (i.e., an estimate adjusted for
    double-counting of shared aircraft that includes operational aircraft
    weighing more than 0.55 pounds)
    93 Based on research of ownership trends and discussions with UAS
    enthusiasts, the FAA assumes that CBO
    members spend more money to purchase or build their model aircraft and
    to maintain their aircraft such that the
    aircraft last much longer than that of the “average” recreational
    flyer. Additionally, members of CBOs are expected
    to own more model aircraft, on average, compared to other recreational
    ? Each UAS producer will incur an estimated one-time cost of $313 for
    the purchase of a
    remote identification standard from a consensus standards body.94
    ? The FAA estimates that potentially as many as 157 U.S. and 324
    foreign producers would
    submit a declaration of compliance for 313 U.S. and 787 foreign models
    of UAS for FAA
    acceptance by year 1 or 2 of the analysis period depending on their
    ability to retrofit.
    During each of the remaining years of the analysis period, the FAA
    assumes an additional
    nine new producers would submit a declaration of compliance annually
    for one model of
    unmanned aircraft each, and nine new models will be produced by
    preexisting producers,
    for a total of eighteen new models of UAS annually.
    ? The FAA assumes that five percent of the declarations of compliance
    submitted by
    persons responsible for the production of standard remote
    identification UAS and limited
    remote identification UAS to the FAA would not be accepted. The
    declaration of
    compliance would then be rewritten and resubmitted to the FAA for
    acceptance, and the
    FAA would accept the resubmission.
    ? Producers will maintain product support and notification procedures
    to notify the public
    and the FAA of any defect or condition that causes the UAS to no
    longer meet the
    requirements of proposed part 89.
    E. Remote ID USS

    94 https://my.rtca.org/nc__store?category=a0L36000003g7jDEAQ. Accessed
    November 13, 2018. Average price for
    the 11 unmanned aircraft standards available at the RTCA website. The
    11 standards range in price from $140 to
    $675 for an average of $313.
    95 Based on analysis of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) Unmanned Systems
    & Robotics Database.
    96 Based on analysis of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) Unmanned Systems
    & Robotics Database.
    ? The FAA estimates that ten entities will request to become Remote ID
    USS and nine of
    the entities will be approved by the FAA by the end of year 1 in the
    analysis period. For
    each of the nine remaining years of the analysis period, the FAA
    assumes one additional
    entity will request to become a Remote ID USS annually which will then
    be approved by
    the FAA.
    ? Each Remote ID USS applicant will be required to submit an
    application package to the
    FAA requesting to become an FAA-qualified Remote ID USS. The FAA
    determines that
    each application package submitted will not exceed 40 pages98 and will
    take the applicant
    25 hours per page to complete at a fully burdened wage of $92.72 per
    hour (a fully
    burdened wage includes pay and benefits).
    ? The FAA assumes each entity operating a UAS would be required to
    subscribe to a
    Remote ID USS at a rate of $2.50 per month or $30 per year.
    100 Entities that operate UAS
    without remote identification may only operate within FAA-recognized identification
    areas and are not required to subscribe to a Remote ID USS.
    F. Other

    97 Source: FAA subject matter expert.
    98 See Section 6.5 Application Package Specifics, page 8. (Source: https://www.faa.gov/uas/programs_partnerships/data_exchange/laanc_for_industry/media/FAA_USS_LAANC_Onb
    oarding_Process.pdf.) The FAA determines that the Remote ID USS
    applicant package will be more complex than
    the application package for LAANC.
    99 Based on information from the regulatory analysis of the 2019
    proposed rule, Operations of Small Unmanned
    Aircraft Systems Over People (https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FAA-2018-1087). The regulatory
    estimated it would take a small UAS manufacturer 25 hours per page of representative activity to compile
    information, draft, review, and approve remote pilot operating
    instructions. This estimate is used as a proxy for the
    time required by a USS service provider applicant to complete each
    page of the application package submitted to the
    100 FAA review of subscription costs to USS for LAANC range from 0$ to
    $5 per month. The average of $2.50 is
    used for the regulatory analysis. In this analysis, the FAA assumes
    the subscription cost will be a flat rate and will
    not vary by the number of UAS operated by an entity. UAS service
    providers may charge additional fees for other
    services not related to this proposed rule.
    ? The FAA assigns the United States Department of Transportation
    guidance on the hourly
    value of travel time savings for personal purposes (for limited
    recreational flyers only).
    This value is equal to $14.21 per hour and is applicable for the
    ten-year analysis
    ? The FAA assumes that all Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) flying
    sites will
    submit requests to become FAA-recognized identification areas, and
    that 90 percent of
    the requests will be approved. The remaining ten percent are assumed
    to be in sensitive
    areas and therefore will not be approved to become an FAA-recognized identification
    ? The FAA estimates it will conduct 2,002 investigations of UAS
    incidents annually for
    each year of the analysis period and that each investigation will
    range between 1 and 40
    The FAA requests comments, with supporting documentation, on these
    2. Benefits Summary
    The FAA is proposing to require the remote identification of UAS
    operating in the
    airspace of the United States. Remote identification of UAS provides situational awareness of
    operations conducted in the airspace of the United States, fosters accountability of the operators
    and owners of UAS, and improves the capabilities of the FAA and law
    enforcement to
    investigate and mitigate careless, hazardous, and noncompliant
    operations. The ability to know

    101 Time savings is estimated to be median hourly wage plus benefits
    as described in the U.S. Department of
    Transportation Revised Departmental Guidance on Valuation of Travel
    Time in Economic Analysis ( Sept. 27,
    102 The FAA conducted 2,002 investigations in FY 2018.
    the location of UAS operating in the airspace of the United States,
    and to identify and locate their
    operators, creates a safer environment. This, in turn, enhances safety
    in air commerce and the
    efficient use of the airspace of the United States.
    First and foremost, the implementation of these proposed remote
    requirements would allow the FAA, as well as law enforcement entities,
    to have access to new
    information to help them be better able to perform their
    responsibilities in protecting users of the
    airspace as well as people and property on the ground. Remote
    identification of UAS would
    enable the FAA, national security agencies, and law enforcement
    entities to have near real-time
    awareness of UAS users in the airspace of the United States. This
    information could be used to
    distinguish compliant operators from those potentially posing a safety
    or security risk.
    There has been an increase in UAS sightings near airports, some of
    which have caused
    travel disruptions and significant financial costs.103 While remote identification alone will not
    stop such occurrences, the FAA expects the duration of the event can
    be reduced by the remote
    identification capabilities in this proposed rule.104 London’s Gatwick
    Airport was closed due to
    unmanned aircraft sightings in July 2017 and again in December 2018.
    In July 2017, a
    spokesperson for the airport reported that operations were suspended
    twice in one day, for a
    period of nine minutes, and again for a period of five minutes. In the
    December 2018 incident,

    103 The FAA has been compiling a database of UAS sightings since
    November 2014. The database is compiled
    mostly from reports by pilots submitting statements of possible UAS
    sightings or encounters to the FAA’s air traffic
    control facilities, but it also contains reports submitted by the
    general public, law enforcement, air traffic controllers,
    and others. The reports typically involve sightings of UAS operating
    around airports or airborne manned aircraft.
    The FAA analyzed 7,285 records from the database for the 48-month
    period starting with January 2015 and going
    through December 2108. During this time, UAS sightings have increased
    almost two fold, going from about 100
    reports per month to just under 200 reports per month. The FAA
    acknowledges that the data is often not sufficient
    for the FAA to conduct investigations, and that reported sightings
    could involve UAS operating in a safe and
    authorized manner. However, the increase in reported sightings is
    indicative of a proliferation of UAS operating in
    the airspace.
    104 http://www.digitaljournal.com/tech-and-science/technology/q-a-recent-airport-shutdowns-need-droneinterdiction-technology/article/543680.
    Accessed February 26, 2019.
    Gatwick was closed twice during the holiday travel rush, once for
    almost 36 hours as police
    worked to identify those operating unmanned aircraft in the area.105
    The December closures
    affected approximately 150,000 passengers and resulted in
    approximately 1,000 flight
    106 which cost the airlines and the airport approximately $64.5
    million107 and $20
    million, respectively.108 Flights at London Heathrow Airport were
    suspended in January 2019
    after a sighting of an unmanned aircraft.109 The suspension of flights
    lasted approximately one
    The Dubai International Airport experienced closures due to
    unauthorized unmanned
    aircraft activity in 2015, 2016, and 2019.110 In 2015, the
    unauthorized activity caused the airport
    to shut down for 55 minutes. In 2016, unauthorized UAS activity closed
    the airport three more
    times. Two of the closures lasted 30 minutes each, and one closure
    lasted for 115 minutes.
    Estimated losses for the three closures that occurred in 2016 totaled
    $16.6 million.111 During the
    airport’s most recent closure (February 2019), flight departures were
    suspended for 32 minutes.
    According to the Emirates Authority for Standardization and Metrology,
    airports in the United
    Arab Emirates suffer financial losses averaging $95,368 per minute due
    to unauthorized UAS

    105 https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/21/gatwick-airport-reopens-limited-number-of-flights-dronedisruption.
    Accessed February 26, 2019.
    106 https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/gatwick-drones-arrests-flight-delay-cancelled-airportchristmas-travel-latest-update-a8695846.html.
    Accessed February 26, 2019.
    107 http://fortune.com/2019/01/22/gatwick-drone-closure-cost/.
    Accessed February 26, 2019. Extrapolated from
    EasyJet’s announcement that it lost $19.3 million in revenue and
    customer welfare costs during the shutdown.
    EasyJet reported 400 flight cancellations, and that the incident
    affected 82,000 of their passengers, for whom it paid
    an average of $160.90. Accessed February 26, 2019.
    108 https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/gatwick-drone-airport-cost-easyjet-runway-securitypassenger-cancellation-a8739841.html.
    Accessed February 26, 2019.
    109 https://www.thenational.ae/world/europe/flights-briefly-stopped-at-heathrow-airport-over-drone-sighting1.810964.
    Accessed February 26, 2019.
    110 http://www.digitaljournal.com/tech-and-science/technology/q-a-recent-airport-shutdowns-need-droneinterdiction-technology/article/543680
    111 https://www.arabianbusiness.com/content/375851-drone-costs-100000-minute-loss-to-uae-airports
    In the United States, New Jersey’s Newark Liberty International
    Airport experienced a
    closure in January 2019 after receiving two separate reports of a UAS
    sighting. The FAA
    reported that 43 flights were required to hold while nine flights were
    diverted during the event
    that lasted for 21 minutes.112 On February 21, 2019, flights at Dublin
    Airport in Ireland were
    delayed for 30 minutes due to unauthorized unmanned aircraft activity,
    and on March 22,
    Frankfurt International Airport suspended operations for 29 minutes
    after an unmanned aircraft
    was spotted in the area.
    113,114 Frankfurt International Airport was closed again on May 9 for
    period of 28 minutes due to a UAS sighting. The May 9 closure resulted
    in the cancellation of
    143 departures with an additional 48 arrivals diverted to other
    Currently, personnel that conduct law enforcement and compliance
    activities lack the
    ability to have near real-time awareness of UAS users in the airspace
    of the United States. These
    challenges are an impediment to the FAA’s mission of ensuring the
    safety of the airspace of the
    United States. For example, over 200 unmanned aircraft were detected
    in the no-fly-zone of the
    2018 Albuquerque International Balloon Fiesta in spite of the FAA prohibition.116 This proposed
    rule could have aided the FAA to identify the operators of these
    unmanned aircraft.
    The FAA believes this proposed rule is crucial for the development of
    UTM, which
    would enhance the safety and efficiency of the airspace of the United
    States. The FAA is
    collaborating with other government agencies and industry stakeholders
    to develop UTM, which

    112 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drones/faa-details-impact-of-drone-sightings-on-newark-airportidUSKCN1PH243.
    Accessed February 26, 2019.
    113 https://dronelife.com/2019/02/22/flights-were-grounded-at-dublin-airport-after-another-drone-sighting/.
    February 26, 2019.
    114 https://www.ecnmag.com/news/2019/03/drone-sightings-interrupt-germanys-frankfurt-airport
    115 https://www.france24.com/en/20190509-drone-sighting-briefly-grounds-flights-frankfurt-airport
    116 https://www.krqe.com/news/balloon-fiesta/hundreds-violate-faa-s-no-drone-fly-zone-at-balloonfiesta/1510662538.
    Accessed December 18, 2018.
    would be separate from, but complementary to, the ATM system. As of mid-December 2018,
    there were 1.27 million unmanned aircraft in the unmanned aircraft
    registry. This is over five
    times greater than the number of active manned aircraft registered
    with the FAA. While ADS-B
    is currently used to track manned aircraft and is mandated for manned
    aircraft in certain airspace
    after January 1, 2020, it was not designed to incorporate millions of
    unmanned aircraft on the
    same network. Instead, the FAA envisions a community-based traffic
    management system,
    where UAS operators have the responsibility to participate in a safe
    operating environment. This
    vision for UTM includes services for flight planning, communications, separation, and weather,
    among others.
    The FAA also believes remote identification would provide greater
    situational awareness
    of UAS operating in the airspace of the United States to other
    aircraft in the vicinity of those
    operations, and provide information to airport operators. Manned
    aircraft, especially those
    operating at low altitudes where UAS operations are anticipated to be
    the most prevalent, such as
    helicopters and agricultural aircraft, could carry the necessary
    equipment to display the location
    of UAS operating nearby. In addition, we expect towered airports will
    use remote identification
    information for situational awareness, especially for landing and
    takeoff operations. Further, an
    aircraft preparing to take off from a non-towered airport in Class G
    airspace may have access to
    greater information than is currently available.
    Remote identification is a key stepping stone to facilitating the
    ability to conduct BVLOS

    [continued in next message]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)