FAA Reopening Comment Period for UAS BVLOS, Specifically to Gather Information on ADS-B/EC Practicality to Deconflict Traffic Between Manned and Unmanned Aircraft

The FAA plans to reopen the comment period for 14 days on its recent proposed rule allowing unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) to operate beyond visual line of sight of the UAS operator. The agency wants to gather more information on the feasibility of using electronic conspicuity (EC) devices as a safety mechanism to deconflict collisions between crewed and uncrewed aircraft. EC acts as a more portable, reduced-range ADS-B device that also provides anonymity to its user.   Details on the comment period may be found by clicking here. The FAA has fast-tracked the comment period. Comments are due February 11, 2026.

The FAA determined to open the comment period again after a series of meetings earlier this month with manned and unmanned organizations, including NAAA, where the FAA stated it heard “general support for ADS-B or alternate EC devices, though opinions on specific requirements varied…Some industry representatives raised concerns about the practicality of ADS-B for all environments, particularly at low altitudes and in complex operating conditions.”

At the meeting earlier this year with FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford and other FAA top officials, NAAA communicated that ag pilots have had issues with ADS-B signals at low altitudes when operating around rolling hills and dense tree cover. NAAA also stated, along with several other manned aircraft leaders, that EC aircraft detection devices were the preferred technologies due to their anonymity and would result in more manned aircraft users equipping with them to keep public tax and user fee authorities and litigious entities at bay. NAAA also emphasized that aerial applicators are flying in the same airspace as drones, under 400 feet when they are making turns and applications, and that they have additional obstacles to avoid, such as utility poles, wires, towers, etc. As such, NAAA raised serious concerns to the FAA that the proposed rule’s shielded area language that allows drones operating within 50 feet bubble of wires, rights-of-way, obstacles, etc. without equipping with ADS-B/EC or to give right of way to a manned aircraft is a very dangerous policy. NAAA emphasized that since these shielded area drone interests would be operating commercially and in the vicinity of needed manned applications to cropland, they should be required to equip with ADS-B.  Similar safety concerns from other individuals about the shielded area language were echoed, including from unmanned interests.

NAAA will be reemphasizing its position on EC and shielded areas in its comments to the FAA during this second round of comments.  It will also send out direction to aerial application interests to do the same during this short comment period.  The FAA requests comments about the following specific topics:

  1. Are there alternate EC devices capable of complying with proposed § 108.195(a)(2)(ii) that are available today? What are the names and manufacturers of those devices? Where are the devices currently approved for use and for what purpose(s)? Do any of them have the capability to inform the user that the device is not working properly?
  2. Are these EC devices approved for the same purpose as ADS-B Out? Do these alternate EC devices provide other benefits beyond what ADS-B Out offers? Are existing alternate EC devices used for, or capable of providing, anonymity?
  3. If not currently available, how quickly can alternate EC devices be available to the U.S. market once an approved standard is available?
  4. Would the performance requirements of § 91.227 applicable to ADS-B Out also be appropriate for alternate EC devices? Why or why not?
  5. RTCA has a standard for electronic conspicuity (RTCA DO-282C). Are there any reasons why applying this standard for alternate EC devices in the U.S. not be feasible or appropriate? Are there other existing industry consensus standards for EC that the FAA should consider accepting?
  6. What would be the potential downside(s) of requiring EC devices to include some sort of indicator (e.g., visual or audio) to notify the pilot that the device is not working properly?
  7. Are there other methods or technologies that the FAA should consider allowing manned operators to use to be electronically detectable besides ADS-B Out or alternate EC devices?