RTF ARC Recommendations

Final Report

November 20, 2015

Micro Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

Aviation Rulemaking Committee 

(ARC)

ARC Recommendations 

Final Report

April 1, 2016
April 1, 2016

Table of Contents

1. BACKGROUND...............................................................................................................................................................................1

2. OBJECTIVES AND SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES OF THE ARC .................................................................................... 1

3. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................................................................................................3

4. ARC RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................................................................5

4.1 Recommendations for a Performance-Based Standard for the Classification of UAS Operated Over People .......... 5

4.1.1 Category 1 Performance Standards.............................................................................................................................6

4.1.2 Category 2 Performance Standards.............................................................................................................................7

4.1.3 Category 3 Performance Standards.............................................................................................................................8

4.1.4 Category 4 Performance Standards.............................................................................................................................9

4.2 Means-of-Compliance for Manufacturers to Show that Small UAS Meet the Performance-Based Safety 

Requirement .......................................................................................................................................................................................10

4.2.1 Manufacturer’s Declaration.........................................................................................................................................10

4.2.2 Category 1 Means-of-Compliance .............................................................................................................................10

4.2.3 Category 2 Means-of-Compliance .............................................................................................................................10

4.2.4 Category 3 Means-of-Compliance .............................................................................................................................10

4.2.5 Category 4 Means-of-Compliance .............................................................................................................................11

4.3 Recommended Operational Requirements for Small UAS Appropriate to the Recommended Performance-Based 

Safety Requirement............................................................................................................................................................................11

4.3.1 Category 1 Operational Requirements......................................................................................................................11

4.3.2 Category 2 Operational Requirements......................................................................................................................11

4.3.3 Category 3 Operational Requirements......................................................................................................................11

4.3.4 Category 4 Operational Requirements......................................................................................................................12

5. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................................12

6. APPENDICES ...............................................................................................................................................................................A-1

Appendix A Presentations to the ARC................................................................................................................................A-1

Appendix B Summary of ARC Recommendations...........................................................................................................B-1
April 1, 2016 Page 1

1. BACKGROUND

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) chartered the Micro Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) 

Aviation Rulemaking Committee (the “ARC”) to provide recommendations to the FAA 

Administrator on a regulatory framework for the classification and operation of micro UAS. The

FAA contemplated a micro UAS classification in the Operation and Certification of Small 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Small UAS NPRM), published on 

February 23, 2015. After reviewing comments to the Small UAS NPRM, however, the FAA decided 

that further engagement with industry stakeholders was needed before conducting rulemaking to 

address the regulatory framework for classification and operation of micro UAS. 

The stated objective of the ARC was “to consider recommendations for a performance-based 

standard that would allow for micro UAS to be operated over people who are not directly 

participating in the operation of the UAS or under a covered structure,” which would ultimately 

contribute to an enforceable rule imposed by the FAA.1 

2. OBJECTIVES AND SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES OF THE ARC

ARC Membership

The ARC was composed of members representing a diverse set of aviation stakeholders, including 

the UAS industry and other stakeholders. The ARC members were:

● 3D Robotics (3DR)

● Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA)

● American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)

● Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA)

● Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA)

● American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE)

● Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI)

● Alliance for System Safety of UAS through Research Excellence (ASSURE)

● ASTM International

● AT&T

● Consumer Technology Association (CTA)

● DJI

● Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA)

● General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA)

● GoogleX

● GoPro, Inc.

● Helicopter Association International (HAI)

● Horizon Hobby

● ICON Aircraft

 1 The ARC was established specifically to address flight operations over people. The ARC was not chartered to establish 

a weight based category as described by the micro-UAS classification in the NPRM. 
April 1, 2016 Page 2

● Intel Corporation 

● National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA)

● National Association of REALTORS® (NAR)

● National Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO)

● News Media Coalition

● Professional Aerial Photographers Association, International (PAPA)

● Small UAV Coalition

● Toy Industry Association

ARC Objectives

The FAA charged the ARC with the following three objectives:

1. Develop recommendations for a performance-based standard for the classification of micro 

UAS.

• The charter stipulated that, in developing the recommendation, the ARC should 

consider, at a minimum, current and past research on human injury thresholds, 

hazard and risk assessment methodologies, and acceptable levels of risk to persons 

not directly participating in the operation.

2. Identify means-of-compliance for manufacturers to show that unmanned aircraft meet the 

performance-based safety requirement.

• The charter advised the ARC to evaluate the use of consensus standards as a means 

of compliance, developing standardized test methods, and other means to 

demonstrate compliance with the standard. The charter further advised the ARC to 

consider and recommend how the FAA and manufacturers should determine 

compliance with the performance-based standard.

3. Recommend operational requirements for micro UAS appropriate to the recommended 

performance-based safety requirement.

ARC Meetings

The ARC met during a 3-day period from March 8 - March 10, 2016, for the purpose of education 

and information gathering, and a second 3-day period from March 15 - March 17, 2016, for 

discussions and deliberations. FAA Administrator Huerta addressed the ARC in the first week of 

these meetings, thanking the members for their participation in the ARC and stating the Agency’s 

support for FAA-stakeholder collaboration.

The first day began with an introductory briefing from the FAA and industry co-chairs, followed by 

an open discussion for the members to raise questions and share thoughts regarding the three main 

objectives of the ARC. This discussion focused on the members’ shared goals of facilitating 

innovation in the burgeoning UAS industry while maintaining or improving the current level of 

safety in the National Airspace System (NAS) and of people on the ground. The FAA briefed the 

ARC on the relevant regulatory framework – i.e., the proposed part 107 of Chapter 14 of the Code 
April 1, 2016 Page 3

of Federal Regulations.2 Proposed part 107 contains specific rules to allow the operation of nonhobby or non-recreational small UAS (less than 55 lbs.) in the NAS. The FAA informed the ARC 

that any recommendations regarding small UAS operations over people will be bound by the 

regulatory requirements in part 107 (commonly known as the “Small UAS NPRM” or “part 107”).

Although the ARC was not aware of the contents of the small UAS final rule, it made assumptions 

about what these requirements will be based on the NPRM.

To provide a substantive baseline of the relevant science for the ARC’s recommendations, the first 

3-day period of the ARC’s meetings included presentations from a selection of experts from 

academia, research and testing facilities, U.S. and international governmental agencies, the U.S. 

military, industry standard-setting bodies, and the UAS and insurance industries; including,

specifically, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST), RTCA, the Department of Defense (DOD), and the FAA UAS 

Centers of Excellence. These presentations covered topics such as current and past research on 

human injury thresholds, hazard and risk assessment methodologies, acceptable levels of risk to 

persons not directly participating in the operation or under a covered structure, and other proposed 

civil aviation authority UAS regulatory frameworks and their supporting rationale. A list of the

presentations is included as Appendix A to this report. 

The second 3-day period focused on development of a recommendation of a regulatory framework 

for small UAS operations over people, with the twin goals of ensuring the safety of the NAS and 

people on the ground, and encouraging innovation in the UAS industry. After identification and 

discussion of the unique risks associated with flight over people and potential mitigations for those 

risks, the ARC developed recommendations for performance-based standards that would allow for a 

UAS to be operated over people not directly participating in the operation of the UAS or under a 

covered structure,3 with a reasonable degree of safety. 

3. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The ARC membership represented diverse interests and viewpoints. Although some decisions were 

not unanimous, the ARC reached consensus on all of its recommendations to the FAA, as reflected 

in this report. The recommendations in this report reflect the final statements of the ARC.

The ARC was focused on flight over people, and in furtherance of that goal, identified four small 

UAS categories, defined primarily by level of risk of injury posed, for operations over people. For 

each category, the ARC recommends a risk threshold that correlates to either a weight or an impact 

energy equivalent and, to the extent necessary to minimize the risks associated with that category,

additional performance standards and operational restrictions. A chart summarizing the ARC’s 

recommendations is attached as Appendix B to this report.

 2 See The Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 80 FR 

9544, Feb. 23, 2015. 3 UAS operations over people who are participating directly in the operation of a small UAS or who are under a covered 

structure are already permitted under the proposed part 107. The ARC’s recommendations therefore apply specifically to

operations over people who do not fall into those two categories. For ease of communication, however, this report will 

simply refer to flight or operations over people, without repeatedly qualifying that this means people who are not 

participating in the operation of the small UAS or under a covered structure.
April 1, 2016 Page 4

Each category is presumed to be subject to the restrictions of proposed part 107 (other than the 

restriction related to flight over people), including but not limited to altitude and time of operations

restrictions. 

Under Category 1, a small UAS may operate over people if the weight (including 

accessories/payload, e.g., cameras) is 250 grams or less. Based on the data the ARC received, the 

ARC believes that the level of risk of injury posed by this category of UAS is so low that no

performance standards and no operational restrictions beyond those imposed by the proposed part 

107 are necessary. To demonstrate that a small UAS qualifies for Category 1 operations over people, 

the manufacturer of the UAS must either: (1) label the product retail packaging of the small UAS 

with the actual weight of the aircraft or a general statement that the aircraft weighs 250 grams or 

less; or (2) declare that the aircraft weighs 250 grams or less, and submit that declaration to the FAA 

in a form and manner acceptable to the FAA. 

Under Categories 2, 3, and 4, a small UAS may operate over people if it does not exceed the impact 

energy threshold specified for each category, as certified by the manufacturer using industryconsensus test methods, and if its operator complies with operational restrictions specified for each 

category. Because the level of risk increases between Categories 2, 3, and 4, the performance-based

standards and operational restrictions are scaled-up in each category to mitigate the increased risks. 

Under Category 2, a small UAS may operate over people if the manufacturer of the UAS certifies to 

the FAA that the UAS does not, in the most probable failure modes, exceed the typical or likely

impact energy threshold, and if it complies with industry consensus performance standards. The 

operator must also comply with the operator instruction manual, must maintain minimum set-off 

distances of 20 feet above people’s heads, or 10 feet laterally away from people, and may not operate 

so close to people as to create an undue hazard to those people.

Under Category 3, a small UAS may operate over people if the manufacturer of the UAS certifies to 

the FAA that the UAS does not, in the most probable failure modes, exceed the typical or likely

impact energy threshold, and if it complies with industry consensus performance standards. Flight 

over crowds or dense concentrations of people is never permitted under this category. In addition to 

that restriction, Category 3 UAS may only operate over people if: (1) the operation is conducted

over a closed- or restricted-access work site with the permission of the site’s owner or operator; or 

(2) overflight of people is limited to those who are transient or incidental to the operation, i.e., the 

overflight of people is incidental to the operation and is not sustained. Additionally, the performance 

standards and operational restrictions that apply to Category 2 operations also apply to Category 3.

Under Category 4, a small UAS may operate over people, including flights over crowds or dense 

concentrations of people prohibited in Category 3, if the manufacturer of the UAS certifies that the 

UAS does not, in the most probable failure modes, exceed the typical or likely impact energy 

threshold, if the UAS complies with industry consensus performance standards, and if the operation 

is conducted in compliance with a documented, risk mitigation plan, which was developed and 

adopted in accordance with industry consensus standards for conducting risk mitigation. The 

performance standards and operational restrictions that apply to Category 2 operations also apply to 

Category 4.

To demonstrate that a small UAS qualifies for Categories 2, 3, or 4 operations over people, the 

manufacturer of the UAS must: (1) declare that the small UAS meets industry consensus standards 
April 1, 2016 Page 5

applicable to the category; (2) submit that declaration to the FAA in a form and manner acceptable 

to the FAA; (3) label the product or product retail packaging in accordance with industry consensus 

standards; and (4) provide an operating manual to the operator that includes operator instructions 

for flight over people. The operator is responsible for knowing what category of operations his or 

her UAS qualifies for, and what operational limitations he or she must follow.

4. ARC RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Recommendations for a Performance-Based Standard for the Classification of 

UAS Operated Over People

The ARC began its discussion using traditional aviation risk models, considering: (1) risks to the 

safety of people and property in the air; (2) risks to the safety of people and property on the ground; 

(3) risks associated with aircraft integrity; and (4) risks associated with crew capability. After 

considerable discussion, the ARC determined that the unique risk posed by flight over 

people (unique in that the risk is not already addressed by proposed part 107) is injury or 

death to persons on the ground.

The ARC then discussed to what extent the risk of injury to persons on the ground is acceptable and 

what measurement to use to quantify the level of risk. Among others, the group referenced the 

presentations of Paul Wilde from the FAA (Public Risk Criteria and Rationale for Commercial 

Launch and Reentry), Joseph Pellettiere from the FAA (Historical Basis for FAA Occupant Safety),

and Dr. Narayan Yoganandan from the Medical College of Wisconsin (Human Injury Tolerance to 

Impact: Biomechanical Studies), and discussed the work of Dr. Natasha Neogi from NASA 

(Hazards Considerations for Micro-Unmanned Aerial Systems (μUAS) Overflight of Populated 

Areas) and the traditional models of aviation risk continuum (from commercial aviation to micro 

UAS) to couple risk of harm and societally acceptable risk levels. 

The ARC also considered what flight “over people” means. With the guidance of FAA staff in the 

room, the ARC came to understand that this term means flight of a UAS directly above one or more 

persons. Any flight not directly over people already will be permitted under proposed part 107, with 

certain proposed limitations. As noted above, what is the unique risk to operating over a person is 

the increased risk that the UAS will strike that person when in failure mode, thus adding an 

operational risk factor to be mitigated.

The ARC agreed to establish risk thresholds based on the probability that direct impact with a 

person on the ground from a UAS would cause an injury that qualifies as level 3 and above on the 

Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS).4 AIS level 3 injuries are classified as “serious.”5 The working 

 4 The AIS was developed by the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine (AAAM), which describes 

the AIS as: “an anatomically based, consensus derived, global severity scoring system that classifies each injury by body 

region according to its relative importance on a 6-point ordinal scale (1=minor and 6=maximal).” See

http://www.aaam.org/about-ais.html. Explanations of the AIS were presented to the ARC by several presenters. 5 In a presentation on the historical basis for FAA occupant safety, an FAA presenter provided the following examples 

of level 3 injuries to the head: small penetrating skull, sinus thrombosis, ischemic brain damage, basilar fracture/LOC 1-

6 hours. 
April 1, 2016 Page 6

assumption for this conclusion is that the UAS is presumed to be in a probable failure mode (such 

as a loss of power) and to fall down, impacting a person. Risk posed to people on the ground by 

lateral impacts, such as a forward-speed loss-of-control scenario, are already addressed by proposed 

part 107. The ARC did not attempt to quantify the current risk of such a failure mode, or an 

acceptable failure rate, or to specify the acceptable probability of a human impact occurrence. On 

guidance from the FAA, the ARC adopted a conservative assumption that any UAS flown over 

people may experience a failure. Therefore, the ARC’s recommendations focus on the severity of 

injury that is acceptable assuming the UAS makes impact with a person. 

Based on the information received, the ARC agreed that the metric used to quantify an acceptable 

probability of an AIS level 3 and above injury should be the impact energy of the small UAS, 

expressed in joules (J)/centimeter2 (cm2). For a particular model of small UAS to qualify for 

operations over people, the manufacturer of that model will therefore have to certify that the 

product’s impact energy, as measured by a test established by an industry consensus standards body, 

does not, in the most probable failure modes, exceed a specified threshold. The intent of the test 

should be to establish the typical or likely impact energy of the most probable failure mode, and not 

simply the worst case condition.

4.1.1 Category 1 Performance Standards

The ARC believes that there are small UAS that pose a level of risk that is so low that they are 

relatively safe to operate over people without being subjected to regulation beyond proposed part 

107. As explained below, for this category of UAS, the ARC recommends a maximum risk impact

threshold of a 1% chance of AIS level 3 or greater injury, based on kinetic energy transfer at impact. 

The impact kinetic energy transfer standard and industry consensus standards are more fully 

explained in the Category 2 discussion. For simplicity, the ARC recommends using a weight-based 

measure instead of an impact kinetic energy measure for Category 1.

The ARC was presented with several studies and analytical methods that could be used to assess the 

risk of a weight-based category of small UAS allowed to operate directly over people. The 

presentation from Dr. Paul Wilde of the FAA discussed methods used for assessing individual and 

collective public risk for commercial space launches. He provided one example, subject to certain 

assumptions, where a UAS weighing 0.55 lbs. (250 grams) operated over people had a probability of 

serious injury or fatality consistent with existing levels of safety for non-participating people when 

exposed to aviation risks. The presentation from Dr. David Arterburn from ASSURE’s University 

of Alabama, Huntsville correlated various human injury thresholds with risks associated with 

sporting events where people are exposed to risks from fast moving balls and other objects that 

could cause an injury or, in extreme cases, a fatality, yet the public is generally accepting of those 

risks.

In addition, Dr. Arterburn’s study showed results that suggest the kinetic energy-based injury 

calculation was overstated as it relates to UAS because of the differences between a simple ball and 

actual UAS design. Specifically, UAS were found by ASSURE to deflect and tumble on impact, 

resulting in only an average 38% kinetic energy transfer during an impact, and therefore a 

significantly lower expected severity of injury compared to shrapnel impacts that were the basis of 

those prior estimates of harm, taken from studies of explosives and ordinance effectiveness. 
April 1, 2016 Page 7

Finally, considerations on very light-weight UAS were completed during the FAA Registration Task 

Force Aviation Rulemaking Committee in November/December 2015 (the “Registration ARC”). 

The Registration ARC considered a paper by MITRE that looked at risks of small UAS impact to 

people on the ground, based on assumptions in earlier studies.6 That paper contains a graph of 

probability of fatality vs. kinetic energy that was used to select an 80 J limit on kinetic energy as a 

measure of potential lethality. This level of total kinetic energy, and a variety of assumptions, was

then used by the Registration ARC to calculate a weight threshold of 250 grams for registration. 

With all of these factors in mind, because of the low level of risk of injury posed by flying objects

weighing 250 grams or less, the ARC recommends no performance-based standards be required for 

unmanned aircraft in this category. The manufacturers will be required to indicate on the retail 

packaging the actual flying weight, or a statement that the aircraft weight is less than 250 grams. To 

provide flexibility in the future, the ARC does, however, recommend that the FAA invite industry to 

create voluntary, non-binding standards for product marking of UAS weighing 250 grams or less to 

make it clear to users that these UAS meet the requirement to operate over people.

4.1.2 Category 2 Performance Standards

Category 2 prescribes the performance standards and operational restrictions for operations over 

people that are conducted by unmanned aircraft that weigh more than 250 grams, but still present a

1% or less chance of “serious” injury (AIS level 3 or greater) to a person in the event of impact. The 

standard to determine whether the UAS meets the risk criteria will be an impact energy threshold

based on information presented to the ARC, and calculated by the FAA in J/cm2. During its 

meetings, the ARC was presented with information from Canada and the commercial space industry 

suggesting that this calculation would result in a value of 12 J/cm2 and that a quadcopter UAS 

weighing in the range of 4 to 5 pounds would qualify, depending on its design characteristics and 

operating instructions. The ARC recommends that the FAA calculate this exact impact energy 

threshold for the proposed flight-over-people rule.

For a small UAS to qualify for Category 2 operations, the manufacturer must certify that the UAS 

does not, in the most probable failure modes, exceed the typical or likely impact energy threshold, in 

accordance with industry consensus testing standards. The operator of the small UAS will also be 

subject to certain operational restrictions, which are discussed below in Section 4.3.2.

To facilitate the development of industry consensus standards for Category 2 that are acceptable to 

the FAA Administrator, the ARC recommends that the industry consensus standards must do the 

following:

(1) Establish a test to measure the typical or likely impact energy of the small unmanned aircraft 

in the most probable failure modes to determine whether it meets the specified impact 

energy threshold. Testing may be subject to manufacturer defined operating limitations, if 

any. The impact energy threshold used in the standards may account for the energy 

 6 “A New Paradigm for Small UAS,” Andrew Lacher and David Maroney, available at 

https://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/pdf/12_2840.pdf ; “Lethality Criteria for Debris Generated From Accidental 

Explosions,” Jon Henderson, available at http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA532158.
April 1, 2016 Page 8

dissipation caused by the physical design of the small unmanned aircraft and likely impact 

scenarios.

(2) Address impact of exposed rotating parts to risk analysis with a focus on serious injury (AIS 

level 3 or greater).

(3) Require the manufacturer of the small unmanned aircraft to provide an operating manual to 

the operator, which must include operator requirements for flight over people.

(4) Define how the product shall be labeled to show operators that the manufacturer has 

declared that the UAS is in compliance with the standard.

4.1.3 Category 3 Performance Standards

This category prescribes the performance standards and operational restrictions for limited 

operations over people (as described in Section 4.3.3. below) that are conducted by UAS that 

present a level of risk of “serious” injury (AIS level 3 or greater) that is incrementally higher than the 

level of risk of injury presented in Category 2. Specifically, the ARC recommends that a small UAS 

be permitted to conduct limited operations over people (as defined below) if that UAS presents a 

30% or lower chance of causing an AIS level 3 or greater injury upon impact with a person. The 

ARC recommends that the FAA also establish an impact energy threshold for this risk level based 

on information presented to the ARC, in J/cm2.

For a small UAS to qualify for Category 3 operations, the manufacturer must certify that the UAS

does not, in the most probable failure modes, exceed the typical or likely impact energy threshold as 

determined by industry consensus standard testing. The operator of the small UAS will also be 

subject to certain operational restrictions, which are discussed below in Section 4.3.3.

To facilitate the development of industry consensus standards for small UAS that qualify for 

Category 3 operations over people that are acceptable to the FAA Administrator, the ARC 

recommends that the industry consensus standards must do the following:

(1) Establish a test to measure typical or likely impact energy of the small unmanned aircraft 

when the aircraft is operating in the most probable failure mode to determine whether it

meets the specified impact energy threshold. Testing may be subject to manufacturer defined 

operating limitations, if any. The impact energy threshold used in the standards may account 

for the energy dissipation caused by the physical design of the small unmanned aircraft and 

likely impact scenarios.

(2) Address the impact of exposed rotating parts to safety analysis with a focus on serious injury 

(AIS level 3 or greater).

(3) Require the manufacturer of the small unmanned aircraft to provide an operating manual to 

the operator, which must include operator requirements for flight over people.

(4) Define how the product shall be labeled to show operators that the manufacturer has 

declared that the UAS is in compliance with the standard.

Operations in this category allow limited operations over people and do not allow flight over crowds 

or dense gatherings of people. Operational limitations and restrictions for this category are described 

in section 4.3.3 below. 
April 1, 2016 Page 9

4.1.4 Category 4 Performance Standards

This category prescribes performance standards and operational restrictions for operations over 

people that are conducted by UAS that present the same level of risk of “serious” injury as Category 

3, but that involve sustained flight over people beyond what is permitted in Category 3, specifically 

flight over crowds and/or dense gatherings of persons. Because an increased number of people on 

the ground may be subjected to overhead flight of longer duration, the ARC recommends 

prescribing additional operational mitigations for this category. Specifically, the ARC discussed the 

various risk factors presented in the week-one presentations and determined that, along with other 

factors, operator qualifications are an important mitigation in sustained operations of this category

UAS over crowds of people and should be included in a mission-appropriate manner through a risk 

mitigation plan, similar in nature to already established FAA “Congested Area Plan” processes. As a 

result, the ARC included this requirement in operational restrictions described below.

Category 4 includes operations conducted by UAS operators that present the same risk as UAS 

conducting Category 3 operations over people, but without Category 3 operational limitations, and 

therefore require a risk mitigation plan specific to the operation (discussed below in Section 4.3.4). 

The industry consensus standards for this category are also the same as the standards for Category 3, 

but with the addition of the risk mitigation plan, which may include coordination with the FAA or 

event sponsor, municipality or local law enforcement, and pilot training, experience and certification 

commensurate with the increased risk, as determined by an industry consensus standard.

In addition to safety of persons on the ground, the recommended addition of engagement with 

appropriate third parties is intended to address concerns about the social acceptance of operating a 

UAS over large gatherings or events. It is the ARC’s recommendation that this facilitation of local 

engagement, while not intended as a delegation of jurisdiction over UAS operations, will be helpful 

to address community concerns.

To facilitate the development of industry consensus standards for small UAS that qualify for 

Category 4 operations over people that are acceptable to the FAA Administrator, the ARC 

recommends that in addition to Category 3 requirements, the industry consensus standards must:

(1) Require a risk mitigation plan that addresses, at a minimum: (a) higher operator qualifications

than the proposed part 107; and (b) the method of compliance with the risk mitigation plan, 

including the possibility of engagement with appropriate local entities.

(2) Consider materials and components of the UAS to determine if the materials pose additional 

potential risk of collateral serious injury to people on the ground, in addition to injury caused 

by initial impact.
April 1, 2016 Page 10

4.2 Means-of-Compliance for Manufacturers to Show that Small UAS Meet the 

Performance-Based Safety Requirement

4.2.1 Manufacturer’s Declaration

To demonstrate that a small UAS qualifies for Category 2, 3, or 4 operations over people, the ARC 

recommends that the manufacturer of the UAS be required to declare (self-certify) that the small 

UAS meets industry consensus standards for operation over people. This recommendation is the 

outcome of a robust discussion that also considered, and rejected, two alternatives: (1) FAA 

certification of conformity with standards; and (2) mandated third-party certification (such as by an 

independent laboratory). The consensus view was that FAA certification would be impractical and 

too slow to keep up with the rapid pace of technology development, and thus this method of 

certification was unanimously rejected. The ARC also concluded that mandatory third-party 

laboratory certification would impose an unnecessarily high burden in light of the simple type of test 

that is contemplated (a drop test measuring impact energy transfer). The ARC was unanimous in 

recommending manufacturer self-certification for Categories 1, 2, and 3. There was also consensus 

for self-certification for Category 4. 

4.2.2 Category 1 Means-of-Compliance

To demonstrate that a small UAS qualifies for Category 1 operations over people, the ARC 

recommends that the manufacturer of the UAS be required to: (1) label the retail product packaging 

of the small UAS with either the actual weight of the small unmanned aircraft or a general statement 

that the small unmanned aircraft weighs 250 grams or less; or (2) declare that the small unmanned 

aircraft weighs 250 grams or less and submit that declaration to the FAA in a form and manner 

acceptable to the FAA. 

4.2.3 Category 2 Means-of-Compliance

To demonstrate that a small UAS qualifies for Category 2 operations over people, the ARC 

recommends that the manufacturer of the UAS be required to: (1) declare that the small UAS meets 

applicable industry consensus performance standards for operation over people; (2) submit that 

declaration to the FAA in a form and manner acceptable to the FAA; and (3) label the product or 

product retail packaging in accordance with industry consensus standards.

4.2.4 Category 3 Means-of-Compliance

To demonstrate that a small UAS qualifies for Category 3 operations over people, the ARC 

recommends that the manufacturer of the UAS be required to: (1) declare that the small UAS meets 

applicable industry consensus standards for operation over people; (2) submit that declaration to the 

FAA in a form and manner acceptable to the FAA; and (3) label the product or product retail 

packaging in accordance with industry consensus standards.
April 1, 2016 Page 11

4.2.5 Category 4 Means-of-Compliance

To demonstrate that a small UAS qualifies for Category 4 operations over people, the ARC 

recommends that the manufacturer of the UAS be required to: (1) declare that the small UAS meets 

applicable industry consensus standards for operation over people; (2) submit that declaration to the 

FAA in a form and manner acceptable to the FAA; and (3) label the product or product retail 

packaging in accordance with industry consensus standards.

4.3 Recommended Operational Requirements for Small UAS Appropriate to the 

Recommended Performance-Based Safety Requirement

4.3.1 Category 1 Operational Requirements

Recognizing the low risk of injury posed by UAS with a weight (including accessories/payload, e.g., 

cameras) of 250 grams or less, the ARC recommends no operational restrictions for UAS in this 

category.

4.3.2 Category 2 Operational Requirements

For UAS above 250 grams and meeting the risk level for Category 2 operations over people, the 

ARC recommends the following operational restrictions:

(1) The operator must comply with the manufacturer’s operator manual for the small UAS, 

developed in accordance with industry consensus standards.

(2) The small UAS must be operated at a minimum distance of 20 feet above people’s heads, or 

10 feet laterally away from, people. Notwithstanding these minimum distance requirements, 

the small UAS must always maintain a safe distance from people so as not to create an 

undue hazard to those people.

4.3.3 Category 3 Operational Requirements

The ARC recommends that operators conducting Category 3 operations over people be bound by 

the same operational restrictions as operators conducting Category 2 operations over people (i.e., 

comply with the manufacturer’s operator manual and maintain specified minimum set-off distances). 

To mitigate the additional level of risk of “serious” injury posed by small UAS conducting Category 

3 operations over people, the ARC recommends the following additional operational restrictions for 

this category:

Flight over crowds or dense concentrations of people is never permitted under Category 3. In 

addition to that restriction, Category 3 UAS may only operate over people if: 
April 1, 2016 Page 12

(1) The operation is conducted over a closed- or restricted-access work site with the 

permission of the site’s owner or operator; or

(2) Overflight of people is limited to those who are transient or incidental to the operation, i.e.,

the overflight of people is incidental to the operation and is not sustained.

4.3.4 Category 4 Operational Requirements

This category provides additional operational flexibility for operations over people by UAS that 

present the same level of risk of “serious” injury as Category 3. Specifically, the ARC recommends 

that small UAS that satisfy the same impact energy threshold as UAS conducting Category 3 

operations be permitted to operate over people without the place and manner restrictions of 

Category 3, if the operation is conducted in compliance with a documented risk mitigation plan, 

which was developed and implemented in accordance with industry consensus standards.

The ARC recommends that the industry consensus standard include the requirement of a

preparation of risk mitigation plan that must address, at a minimum: (a) operator qualifications; (b) 

the method of approval and compliance with the risk mitigation plan, including the possibility of 

engagement with appropriate local entities. The ARC suggests that the standard-setting body may 

want to consider, as a reference, similar requirements for manned aircraft in 14 CFR 137.51.

Operators conducting Category 4 operations over people would also be bound by the other 

operational restrictions as operators conducting Category 2 and Category 3 operations over people 

(i.e., they must comply with the operator manual and maintain specified minimum set-off distances).

5. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS

The ARC is unanimous in its belief that operator knowledge is very important to the safety of the 

NAS. One purpose of airman certification requirements is to assure adequate operator knowledge. It 

is the understanding of the ARC that pursuant to proposed part 107, the only means of achieving 

airman certification will be to take an in-person knowledge test and submit to a Transportation 

Security Administration (TSA) background check – even for operation of UAS in the lowest risk 

category (Category 1, under 250 grams). The overwhelming majority of ARC members believe that 

the in-person test requirement and TSA background check are unduly burdensome for operators of 

Category 1 UAS, and may be detrimental to safety by discouraging compliance for operators of such 

small UAS. The overwhelming majority of the ARC members believe that the same or higher level 

of safety and compliance can be reached by allowing online knowledge testing and eliminating or 

reconsidering the TSA vetting process. 

Faced with burdensome requirements, it would not be unusual for even well-meaning operators to 

fly the smallest UAS without traveling to a test center to satisfy knowledge and other requirements. 

In that case, rather than enhancing safety, the requirements would be an impediment to safety. 

Those same operators are far more likely to participate in online instruction and take an online test,

thus assuring knowledge of the airspace. The ARC urges the FAA to consider less burdensome 

requirements on operators of UASs in Category 1. Specifically, the ARC recommends changing 
April 1, 2016 Page 13

airman certification requirements to allow online testing to satisfy knowledge requirements, and to 

work to eliminate in-person visits and background checks. 

It should be noted that representatives of ALPA, NAAA, HAI, and PAPA did not agree that online 

testing and the elimination of background checks were properly informed or appropriate 

recommendations for the ARC. The organizations all strongly maintain the position that an 

individual intending to exercise the privileges permitted under proposed part 107, which include 

commercial small UAS operations, should fully comply with the necessary training and certification 

as currently described in part 107, no matter the size or complexity of the aircraft. Their concerns 

were centered on the lack of data submitted during the ARC indicating this UAS category is not a 

proven security risk, or that testing will not enhance safety. In addition, data was not provided to the 

ARC indicating that security and testing requirements for this category would discourage 

compliance. The dissenting groups also stated that training, experience, and evaluation of skills and 

knowledge for initial certification and a revalidation of those skills periodically, such as is required 

for other airman certificates, should be required for these UAS and that proposals waiving such 

requirements were outside of the charter for this ARC.
April 1, 2016 Page A-1

6. APPENDICES

Appendix A Presentations to the ARC

Presenter Presentation

Christine DeJong, ASTM Standards – Improving Safety and Reliability in Aviation

Joseph Pellettiere, FAA Historical Basis for FAA Occupant Safety

Mark Wuennenberg, Transport 

Canada

Transport Canada Small UAV Regulations

Dr. Natasha Neogi, NASA Hazards Considerations for Micro-Unmanned Aerial 

Systems (μUAS) Overflight of Populated Areas

Adam Jacoff, NIST Development of Standard Test Methods to Evaluate Micro 

Unmanned Aerial Systems for Emergency Response 

Application

Nick Kray, ASSURE/GE 

Aviation

Initial Briefing: UAV Evaluations for GE Aviation 

Turbofan Ingestion

Dr. Javid Bayandor, Virginia Tech High Fidelity Micro UAS Collison Modeling and Damage 

Assessment Strategy

Dr. Tom Aldag, 

ASSURE/Wichita State 

University

Airborne Collision – ASSURE FAA Center of Excellence 

Research

Al Secen, RTCA Overview RTCA and SC-228 Minimum Performance 

Standards for UAS

Dr. Narayan Yoganandan, 

ASSURE/ Medical College of 

Wisconsin

Human Injury Tolerance to Impact Loads: Biomechanical 

Studies

Dr. David Arterburn, 

ASSURE/University of Alabama, 

Huntsville

Ground Collision Severity Research

Jonathan Daniels, Praxis 

Aerospace Concepts

Reapplication of Processes Established by FAR 65.104 to 

Micro and Small UAS

Dr. Roland Weibel, MIT Lincoln 

Labs

Risk-Based Standards for Operating Small Unmanned 

Aircraft Over People

Dr. Christopher Draper, Simpson 

College

Using Energy-based Risk Approaches to Define Safe 

Operating Areas

James Cole and Matthew 

Zurasky, NSWC Dahlgren

Brief Description of Navy Analysis Capabilities

Antonio Marchetto, EASA The EASA Technical Opinion – Introduction of a 

Regulatory Framework for the Operation of Unmanned 

Aircrafts

Christopher Sacco, US Navy 

PMA-263

Navy and Marine Corps Small Tactical Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems Program Office Overview of Operations and 

Logistics

Dr. Paul Wilde, FAA Public Risk Criteria and Rationale for Commercial Launch 
April 1, 2016 Page A-2

Presenter Presentation

and Reentry

Jill Brown, NASA CERTAIN (City Environment Range Testing of 

Autonomous Integrated Navigation)

Mark Dombroff, UAS Insurance 

Association

UAS Insurance Association

Dr. Joel Recht, CPSC Identifying and Managing Risk
April 1, 2016 Page B-1

Appendix B Summary of ARC Recommendations 

Micro UAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee Recommendations Summary

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4

What is the weight 

or impact energy 

threshold for UAS 

to qualify for 

operations under 

this category?

UAS weighs 250 

grams or less.

UAS causes less than a 

1% chance of AIS level 

3 or greater injury, as 

expressed in the rule by 

not exceeding an impact 

energy threshold defined 

by the FAA in J/cm2.

UAS causes less than a 

30% chance of AIS level 

3 or greater injury, as 

expressed in the rule by 

not exceeding an impact 

energy threshold defined 

by the FAA in J/cm2.

UAS causes less than a 

30% chance of AIS level 

3 or greater injury, as 

expressed in the rule by 

not exceeding an impact 

energy threshold defined 

by the FAA in J/cm2.

Are there industry 

consensus 

performance 

standards with 

which the UAS 

must comply to 

qualify for 

operations under 

this category? 

No, but the ARC 

recommends the FAA 

invite industry to 

develop voluntary

consensus standards.

Yes. The industry 

consensus standard 

must, at a minimum: (1) 

establish a test to 

measure the typical 

impact energy of the 

unmanned aircraft to 

determine whether it 

meets the specified 

impact energy threshold; 

(2) study impact of 

exposed rotating parts to 

safety analysis; and (3) 

require the manufacturer 

of the unmanned aircraft 

to provide an operating 

manual to the operator. 

Yes. The industry 

consensus standard 

must: (1) establish a test 

to measure the typical 

impact energy of the 

unmanned aircraft to 

determine whether the 

UAS meets the specified 

impact energy threshold; 

(2) address impact of 

exposed rotating parts to 

safety analysis; and (3) 

require the manufacturer 

of the unmanned aircraft 

to provide an operating 

manual to the operator.

Yes. The industry 

consensus standard 

must: (1) establish a test 

to measure the typical

impact energy of the

unmanned aircraft to 

determine whether it

meets the specified 

impact energy 

threshold; (2) address 

impact of exposed 

rotating parts to safety 

analysis; (3) require the 

manufacturer of the 

unmanned aircraft to 

provide an operating 

manual to the operator; 

(4) consider materials 

and components of the 

UAS to determine if the 

materials pose 

additional potential risk 

of collateral injury to 

people on the ground, 

in addition to injury 

caused by initial impact; 

and (5) develop a risk 

mitigation plan for 

operations over people. 

How do

manufacturers

demonstrate to the 

FAA that their 

UAS complies with 

industry consensus 

standards?

Either: (1) label the 

product retail

packaging with the 

actual weight of the 

unmanned aircraft or 

with a general 

statement that the

unmanned aircraft 

weighs 250 grams or 

less; or (2) declare that 

the unmanned aircraft 

weighs 250 grams or 

(1) Declare that the 

UAS meets applicable 

industry consensus 

standards for operation 

over people; (2) submit 

that declaration to the 

FAA in a form and 

manner acceptable to 

the FAA; and (3) label 

the product and or 

product retail packaging 

in accordance with 

(1) Declare that the UAS 

meets applicable industry 

consensus standards for 

operation over people; 

(2) submit that 

declaration to the FAA 

in a form and manner 

acceptable to the FAA; 

and (3) label the product 

and or product retail

packaging in accordance 

with industry consensus 

(1) Declare that the 

UAS meets applicable 

industry consensus 

standards for operation 

over people; (2) submit 

that declaration to the 

FAA in a form and 

manner acceptable to 

the FAA; and (3) label 

the product and or 

product retail packaging

in accordance with 
April 1, 2016 Page B-2

Micro UAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee Recommendations Summary

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4

less and submit that 

declaration to the 

FAA in a form and 

manner acceptable to 

the FAA.

industry consensus 

standards.

standards. industry consensus 

standards.

Do the operators 

have to comply 

with operational 

requirements 

beyond those 

imposed by the 

proposed part 107?

No. Yes. The operator must 

comply with the 

manufacturer’s operator 

manual. The operator 

must also ensure that 

the UAS maintains a 

minimum distance of 

20 feet above people’s 

heads, or 10 feet 

laterally away from, 

people on the ground

and must not create an 

undue hazard to people. 

Yes. Flight over crowds 

or dense concentrations 

of people is never 

permitted under Category 

3. In addition to that 

restriction, small UAS 

may only operate over 

people if: 

(1) The operation is 

conducted over a closedor restricted-access work 

site with the permission 

of the site’s owner or 

operator; or

(2) Overflight of people is 

limited to those who are 

transient or incidental to 

the operation, i.e. the 

overflight of people is 

incidental to the 

operation and is not 

sustained.

Operational requirements 

applicable to Category 2 

(i.e., comply with the 

manufacturer’s operator 

manual and maintain 

specified minimum setoff distances) also apply 

to Category 3.

Yes. In addition to the 

operational 

requirements for 

Category 2, the UAS

may only operate over 

people if the operation 

is conducted in 

compliance with a 

documented risk 

mitigation plan, which 

may include, among 

other things, local 

coordination and pilot 

training commensurate 

with the risk, and which 

was adopted in 

accordance with 

industry consensus 

standards.