Pilots Voice Worry Over Part 108 Drone Rules

FAA's Proposed Part 108 Rules for BVLOS Drone Operations

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has spent over four years working on regulations for beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) drone flight. In August, the agency released a proposed Part 108 rule, marking its most significant step toward enabling commercial drone delivery, inspection, and other missions that go beyond the operator's direct view—especially in controlled airspace.

However, pilots represented by groups like the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), and others are concerned that the proposal increases risks for crewed aircraft. AOPA stated in a comment submitted in October that while it supports integrating drones into the National Airspace System (NAS), it believes the FAA should focus more on concerns from industry segments that contribute to the Aviation Trust Fund.

In under 60 days, the FAA received over 1 million comments on its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for Part 108. Many of these comments criticized the proposal’s favoritism toward the drone industry. For instance, in certain scenarios, drones would have right-of-way (ROW) over crewed aircraft, and drone firms would face lighter training and operational requirements.

Pilots feel they aren't being adequately represented in the discussions around Part 108. Although crewed aviation representatives participated in the FAA's BVLOS Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC), which provided recommendations used in developing the proposal, AOPA said its concerns—including the rejection of the "big sky" theory that few crewed operations happen at low altitude where drones fly—were largely ignored.

"The ARC's industry leadership team consisted solely of representatives from the drone community, and the input and recommendations from the manned aviation community were routinely minimized or dismissed entirely," AOPA commented. "It is notable that the manned aviation community objected to the ensuing report."

Given the volume of criticism, AOPA, ALPA, and other groups asked the FAA to address their concerns in an additional, supplemental NPRM. They also requested clarity on the operational drone data that informed the proposal.

What Is Part 108?

Developing a framework for safe and routine BVLOS operations is seen by the FAA and the drone industry as the next major step in uncrewed aviation. Part 108 aims to do just that. Under the proposal, drone operators would obtain a Part 108 permit or certificate by showing compliance with airworthiness, design, and test requirements through industry consensus standards. Part 108 drones would be subject to new operational rules allowing BVLOS flights without a waiver or exemption. Safety requirements would depend on the level of risk. Drones operating in Class B or C airspace, for example, would face stricter standards than those in Class D, E, or G.

In higher-risk scenarios, drones would need to detect all aircraft, regardless of whether they have functioning ADS-B Out transmitters or electronic conspicuity (EC) devices. However, the proposal also places detect-and-avoid responsibilities on crewed aircraft, giving drones ROW in certain situations.

Part 108 drone pilots wouldn’t require a traditional airman certificate. Instead, the burden of training personnel would fall on the operator. An operations supervisor would be responsible for overall safety, while qualified flight coordinators would monitor flights and intervene if needed.

Drone industry commenters argue that these provisions don’t go far enough. Pilots, on the other hand, say they are too permissive to be safe.

Pilots Push Back

The crewed aviation world is largely united in its criticism of Part 108. The National Air Transportation Association (NATA), Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), Pilot Institute, and six other groups joined AOPA to issue a unified statement warning of "unintended consequences."

Who Goes First?

Chief among pilots' concerns is the issue of right-of-way (ROW). The FAA proposes to give drones ROW over crewed aircraft in shielded areas—those within 100 feet of a structure—and Class D, E, and G airspace. It argues that crewed aircraft are "extremely unlikely to be operating" in these areas.

But AOPA says this assumption is "demonstrably inaccurate" and suggests extending ROW for crewed aircraft to all airspace, not just Class B and C. Historically, ROW has been determined by maneuverability rather than equipage. Pilots argue it should remain that way since they can’t adequately see and avoid small drones. Part 108, however, would also give drones ROW over crewed aircraft that aren’t broadcasting their location.

"It is both surprising and disappointing that the FAA would propose such a radical departure from traffic deconfliction norms simply because it is too difficult or expensive for BVLOS drone operators to equip themselves in such a way as to take on the same shared responsibility that all other aircraft operators assume," AOPA wrote.

In Class B and C airspace, the FAA wants drones to be capable of detecting all aircraft—even those not broadcasting their location. The Commercial Drone Alliance (CDA) and other industry commenters countered that crewed aircraft should instead be required to be conspicuous.

AOPA rejected that suggestion, arguing that ADS-B Out and EC are just "one part of a multi-layered approach" to detect and avoid (DAA). ADS-B, it said, is unreliable at low altitude and cannot be installed on the more than 17,000 aircraft in the U.S. that operate without electrical systems. EC, meanwhile, may not be available or affordable when Part 108 takes effect.

"It is arguably just as likely that BVLOS drones will encounter non-conspicuous aircraft in Class D, E, and G airspace, where there is no ADS-B Out mandate and where there is a higher concentration of certain low-altitude general aviation operations," AOPA said.

Pilots contend that drones should be able to detect and avoid non-conspicuous aircraft in all airspace—not just Class B and C. They went a step further, calling for all BVLOS drones to have ADS-B In capabilities as well. The FAA, they said, should subsidize the purchase of EC systems as it did for ADS-B Out.

"To require GA aircraft to equip with conspicuity technology, which may or may not be reliable enough to serve as a stand-alone deconfliction mechanism, simply because DAA capabilities for drones are too expensive, too heavy, or too power-intensive, is stunningly inequitable and, again, unsafe," AOPA said.

Pilots also worry that ROW will not always be clear. Part 108 proposes creating five population density areas, with the most dense, Category 5, granting ROW to crewed aircraft. But without knowing where these zones begin and end, pilots could be in a Category 5 area one second and a Category 1 area—where ROW shifts to drones—the next.

The bottom line, pilots said, is that drone DAA technology is not nearly advanced enough to give uncrewed drones the ROW over crewed aircraft. As evidence, AOPA pointed to a rare incident in October when a pair of Amazon Prime Air drones crashed into a crane in Arizona.

"While there were no injuries, the resulting debris fell into two nearby parking lots," AOPA wrote. "The fact that two drones crashed within minutes of each other, into the same obstacle, would seem to indicate that a systemic problem exists that must be examined and addressed."

No Drone Zone

AOPA, ALPA, and other pilot associations are generally supportive of the FAA's efforts to unlock BVLOS flight. But they don’t think drones are ready for complex airspace.

ALPA, for instance, opposes drone operations in controlled airspace and near airports, recommending they remain limited to Class G until the FAA conducts an adequate analysis of risk.

The group also has concerns about how uncrewed drones will communicate with air traffic control (ATC). Part 108 would create a pathway for certified, third-party automated data service providers (ADSPs) to manage drone traffic. It is unclear exactly how ADSPs will interoperate with FAA systems, which ALPA worries may result in delayed or inaccurate data.

"ALPA is concerned that if these systems are not properly certified, it would create significant complications with current ATC infrastructure as well as jeopardize the safety of the NAS with communication failures and possible near misses with commercial aircraft," ALPA warned.

Another worry is that by eliminating the need for an airman certificate, Part 108 drone pilots won’t be qualified. ALPA rejected that proposal, suggesting that operators meet a minimum level of flight proficiency under an Airman Certification Standard and be individually vetted by the FAA. AOPA said the FAA should create baseline standards for drone operations supervisors and flight coordinators.

Pilots argue that Part 108's permit and certificate process is less stringent than acquiring a Part 107 remote pilot certification. They also fear that without proper oversight, operators will have too much say in their own determinations of safety.

"The FAA's proposed strategy could be considered a conflict of interest if the level of safety is determined merely by corporate responsibility without proper FAA oversight," ALPA wrote.

Beyond these criticisms, pilots reject raising the existing 55-pound cap for small drones to 1,320 pounds for Part 108 aircraft. AOPA also raised concerns about the 100-foot buffer between drones—which are capped at 400 feet—and crewed aircraft flying at 500 feet.

Great Divide

Pilots fear the proposed BVLOS measures are too permissive. On the other hand, commercial drone companies feel they don’t go far enough.

Like AOPA, operators argue that DAA technology is not yet advanced enough to detect nonconspicuous aircraft. But whereas pilots believe operators should develop that capability, the industry's solution is that all crewed aircraft must be conspicuous.

"This mandate is not supported by safety data, is technically and economically unscalable for small [drones], and may even increase overall risk by adding weight and complexity to the aircraft," commented Wing, which operates drone delivery services in cities such as Dallas-Fort Worth.

Operators also rejected the FAA's proposal that operations supervisors, flight coordinators, and anyone with "unescorted access" to the aircraft or cargo must complete up to a level 3 security threat assessment (STA) with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). According to them, warehouse, store, and restaurant staff—as well as customers—could be considered to have unescorted access.

"This requirement would subject retail staff who pack a five-pound grocery order for drone delivery to the same level of scrutiny applied to hazmat truck drivers hauling explosive materials," commented medical drone delivery provider Zipline.

Added Wing: "A retail assistant loading under 5 [pounds] of food or other household essentials onto a tether beneath a 10 to 20 [pound] aircraft would require a costly and complex security assessment designed for crewed aviation, while a courier loading the same package onto an automobile or motorcycle does not."

Individuals would need to visit a TSA enrollment center to complete the STA. Wing said the process could cost it and its partners as much as $200 million in 2026, imposing "crippling costs and logistical burdens on our partners, from large retailers to local mom and pop shops."

Part 108 would also require drone package delivery operators to obtain a limited TSA security program, which Zipline said saddles them with "obligations intended for large commercial air carriers."

Operators further criticized what they described as overly prescriptive design and testing requirements that per the CDA "would immediately render a significant portion of the drone industry non-compliant."

According to pilots, the drone companies have so far gotten their way.

"AOPA reiterates its support for the integration of drones, including those operating BVLOS, into the NAS," the group wrote. "However, it is critically important that this is done safely and equitably. Unfortunately, numerous items included in the NPRM are directly counter to this objective."

The good news for pilots is that the proposal is just that—a proposal. The FAA will review hundreds of thousands of comments, many of them critical, before finalizing Part 108. The question is whether the regulator will show the same deference to commercial operators as it did for the BVLOS ARC, whose final report the crewed aviation community widely rejected.