NAAA Comments on Petition for Part 137 BVLOS Swarming

On July 6, NAAA submitted comments on a petition from Amor Fati Industries Corp. d/b/a Seneca to amend its existing Part 137 exemption (No. 25122) for wildfire management and suppression operations. The petition sought four significant expansions: to remove the requirement that the uncrewed aircraft (UA) remain within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the pilot in command (PIC); to remove the visual observer (VO) requirement entirely; to increase the number of UA a single PIC may operate simultaneously from three to five; and to authorize a new, heavier aircraft, the 450-pound Argo-3. In place of VLOS and VO oversight, the petitioner proposed to rely on low-altitude “shielded techniques” (remaining below 200 feet AGL near obstacles) together with ADS-B In. 

NAAA’s comments opposed the requested relief, centering on the safety of the manned Part 137 pilots and operators who work in this same low-altitude airspace. NAAA demonstrated that the “shielding” premise is false for aerial application, citing the substantial dataset generated by Mississippi State University from GPS logs donated by operators alongside FAA-sponsored obstacle-proximity survey data from operators. The association also reiterated the unreliable nature of ADS-B In as a sole detect and avoid (DAA) method for UAS against the unique nature of aerial application operations. With no VO and no FAA-verified DAA system, neither the “see” nor the “avoid” element of the right-of-way rules would be satisfied. NAAA further noted that the petitioner’s underlying safety case was filed under confidential cover, so neither the association nor affected operators could evaluate it. 

NAAA’s deepest concern, however, was precedent. Under the FAA’s summary grant practice, once a form of relief is granted it can be extended to materially similar petitions without any public comment. NAAA has watched this cascade before: Exemption No. 22003 (VLOS 3:1 swarming without a VO) and Exemption No. 20257A (no medical) quickly became boilerplate cited in all Part 137 UAS grants. In short, NAAA’s comments were not simply about whether this single fire-suppression UAS operator should be granted the petitioned relief; the danger is that future Part 137 UAS petitioners will seek BVLOS 5:1 swarming without a VO and stand to receive it without individualized review. This is exacerbated by the progressively lowered knowledge and skills bar to entry for Part 137 UAS operations and documented widespread lack of compliance with (or even understanding of) these operators’ exemptions. The scrutiny applied here may be the only public scrutiny these novel concepts ever receive, making this exemption de-facto rulemaking. NAAA, thus, urged the FAA to weigh the decision through a rulemaking lens. 

That framing points to the larger tension. The FAA has not yet finalized its proposed rule Normalizing UAS Beyond Visual Line of Sight Operations (the BVLOS NPRM), on which NAAA submitted extensive comments opposing reliance on shielding and ADS-B In alone. It would be troubling for the agency to grant through an expedited exemption (or the new Section 927 waiver process) the very BVLOS authority it is still publicly debating in rulemaking. NAAA maintains that BVLOS relief should be contingent on a comprehensive DAA system, verified by the FAA as effective against both cooperative and non-cooperative low-altitude manned aircraft.