Concept of 

Operations 

v1.0 

Foundational 

Principles 

Roles and 

Responsibilities 

Use Cases and 

Operational 

Threads 

Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) 

Traffic Management (UTM) 
 

Page Intentionally Blank 

ii | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. Department 

of Tran^aoftation 

Feeidral Aviofion 

Adminisfratton 

Office of NextGen 800 Independence Ave., SW. 

Washington, DC 20591 

May 18, 2018 

Dear Reader: 

Attached for distribution is Version 1.0 of the Unmanned Airerafl Systems (UAS) Traffic 

Management (UTM) Concept of Operations. This concept documents what we have learned 

thus far through our use case development, insights on rulemaking, and the evolution of UTM 

Teehnical Capability Levels (TCLs). It reflects the collaborative efforts across the FAA, 

including ANG, ATO, and AVS, as well as the ongoing inter-Agency research efforts with 

NASA. The concept also refleets the input and participation of Industry partners as part of 

NASA’s research community. 

The NASA UTM Research Transition Team (RTT) serves as the inter-Agency forum to 

collaboratively explore concepts, develop prototypes, and demonstrate a possible future UTM 

system to enable large-scale low altitude UAS operations. 

Through the UTM RTT effort, we will continue to develop subsequent versions as this UTM 

concept matures to eneompass increasingly complex operations and environments. 

Thank you for your attention and please share with interested parties. 
 

Page Intentionally Blank 

iv | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents 

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 

1.1 Need for UTM.........................................................................................................................1 

1.2 UTM Evolution........................................................................................................................2 

1.3 ConOps Scope.........................................................................................................................3 

1.4 ConOps Objectives..................................................................................................................4 

2 UTM Operational Concept................................................................................................... 4 

2.1 Overview.................................................................................................................................4 

2.2 Benefits...................................................................................................................................6 

2.3 Notional Architecture .............................................................................................................6 

2.4 Actors/Entities........................................................................................................................7 

2.4.1 Operator..........................................................................................................................7 

2.4.2 Remote Pilot in Command/RPIC.....................................................................................7 

2.4.3 UAS Service Supplier/USS ...............................................................................................8 

2.4.4 USS Network ...................................................................................................................8 

2.4.5 UAS Supplemental Data Service Suppliers......................................................................9 

2.4.6 Flight Information Management System/FIMS ..............................................................9 

2.4.7 FAA..................................................................................................................................9 

2.4.8 Ancillary Stakeholders.....................................................................................................9 

2.5 Operations............................................................................................................................10 

2.5.1 Participation..................................................................................................................10 

2.5.2 Performance Authorization ..........................................................................................11 

2.5.3 Authentication ..............................................................................................................12 

2.5.4 Operation Planning .......................................................................................................12 

2.5.5 Constraint Information & Advisories............................................................................13 

2.5.6 Separation.....................................................................................................................14 

2.6 Allocation of Responsibilities................................................................................................15 

2.7 Airspace Management..........................................................................................................16 

2.7.1 Safety ............................................................................................................................17 

2.7.2 Security .........................................................................................................................23 

v | Page 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.7.3 Equity ............................................................................................................................25 

3 UTM Use Cases.................................................................................................................. 26 

3.1 BVLOS Operations in Class G (Uncontrolled) Airspace: Mandatory UTM Participation ......26 

3.2 USS Approval/Distribution of a Dynamic Restriction ...........................................................28 

3.3 BVLOS UAS and Manned Aircraft Interactions in Class G (Uncontrolled) Airspace .............29 

3.3.1 Scenario 1 – UAS On-Board Sense/Detect....................................................................29 

3.3.2 Scenario 2 – Ground-Based Sense/Detect....................................................................29 

3.3.3 Scenario 3 – UAS and Manned On-Board Cooperative Equipment..............................30 

3.3.4 Scenario 4 – Manned Aircraft Voluntary Passive UTM Participation ...........................30 

3.3.5 Scenario 5 – Manned Aircraft Voluntary Active UTM Participation .............................30 

3.4 VLOS Operations in Controlled Airspace (Class B/C/D/E): Voluntary UTM Participation ....30 

4 UTM Implementation........................................................................................................ 32 

References................................................................................................................................ 34 

List of Acronyms ....................................................................................................................... 35 

Appendix A - UTM Research Transition Team ........................................................................... 36 

Appendix B - NAS Airspace Classification Descriptions.............................................................. 38 

Appendix C - UTM Services ....................................................................................................... 40 

Appendix D - UAS Service Supplier............................................................................................ 41 

Appendix E – Use Case Inventory: Version 1.0 .......................................................................... 43 

vi | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Projected UAS Growth...........................................................................................................1 

Figure 2. UTM Operations in Context of Airspace Classes....................................................................3 

Figure 3. Notional UTM Architecture....................................................................................................7 

vii | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Allocation of Responsibilities for UTM Actors/Entities.........................................................16 

Table 2. Use Case Summary................................................................................................................26 

viii | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Introduction 

The commercial applications and opportunities for unmanned aircraft system (UAS) operations, 

particularly at low altitudes, across a myriad of sectors from inspection, to survey, to monitoring, to 

package delivery, present enormously enticing incentives and business cases for an operating 

construct that allows for these operations within the regulatory, operational, and technical 

environment that comprises the National Airspace System (NAS). UAS operational needs and 

expected benefits are driving public and private stakeholder partnerships, led by the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), to develop and 

refine a Concept of Operations (ConOps) for UAS Traffic Management (UTM). This vision for UAS 

operations engenders a common desire to realize innovative solutions through public-private 

partnerships and the leveraging of technologies in support of emerging opportunities while ensuring 

safety, security, efficiency, and equity of the NAS are maintained to the highest of standards. 

1.1 Need for UTM 

Integration of low-altitude UAS operations into the NAS presents a variety of issues and novel 

challenges. The predicted volume of small UAS (sUAS) operations across both controlled and 

uncontrolled airspace, which could be on a scale comparable to that of present-day manned air 

traffic, compounds these challenges. Currently, hobbyists and licensed UAS Operators can fly within 

Visual Line of Sight (VLOS) under 14 CFR Parts 101(e) and 107. Other UAS operations occur today via 

waivers; a manual and case-bycase process. As detailed in Figure 

1, the combined hobbyist and 

commercial fleet is projected to 

reach 3 to 6 million by 2021, up 

from less than 1.5 million in 20161

. 

This increase in fleet size will bring 

with it a considerable increase in 

expected volume of operations 

and, in turn, potentially, demand 

for airspace services. With 

commercial UAS conducting 

multiple flights a day to support 

business needs, such as deliveries 

(once enabled), the number of 

daily operations could potentially 

reach into the millions, taxing the 

NAS well beyond its current 

service requirements. Figure 1. Projected UAS Growth 

1 | Page 

1 Schaufele, Ding, Miller, et al, "FAA Aerospace Forecast, Fiscal Years 2017-2037", 2017 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The FAA expects that the full gamut of low-altitude UAS operations will encompass everything from 

those that are fully contained in uncontrolled airspace, to those that require transit across the 

boundary between controlled and uncontrolled airspace, and finally to those that originate and 

operate within controlled airspace. Given the number and type of UAS operations envisioned, it is 

clear that the existing Air Traffic Management (ATM) System cannot cost-effectively scale to deliver 

services for UAS. Further, the nature of most of these operations does not require direct interaction 

with the ATM System. To enable safe management of the expected rapid influx of UAS operations in 

this historically underutilized airspace, solutions that scale beyond the current ATM infrastructure 

and Air Traffic Control (ATC) manpower resources are necessary. Solutions that extend beyond the 

current paradigm for manned aircraft operations, to those that promote shared situational 

awareness among Operators are needed. 

It is the FAA’s responsibility to develop a means for enabling new types of UAS operations. This 

includes establishing a regulatory framework, developing operating rules to ensure accountability of 

Operators and other actors, and promoting efficient and equitable airspace access for all Operators, 

manned and unmanned. The FAA acknowledges the need to develop a concept for unmanned traffic 

management, or UTM, that is separate from, but collaborative with the ATM system, and provide the 

means to support the management of UAS operations in uncontrolled airspace; where no air traffic 

separation services are provided. 

1.2 UTM Evolution 

A conceptual framework for UTM was first conceived by NASA in 2013 and was initially presented at 

a NASA-Industry workshop in 2014. In 2015, NASA hosted a UTM Convention where NASA and sUAS 

Operators highlighted the need for UAS traffic management at low altitudes. In response to the 

Convention, the FAA articulated its principles for managing that airspace, which moved the NASA 

conceptual framework from individual third-party managers of airspace to a focus of third party 

support services for Operators. With the FAA’s clarification that the airspace is managed by the FAA 

and that operations would be done cooperatively by Operators and their support, NASA’s research 

project has evolved to support the development of both the FAA and Operators’ systems, procedures, 

and policies needed to implement UTM. The FAA and NASA formed a UTM Research Transition Team 

(RTT) in 2015 to jointly undertake the development and eventual implementation of UTM, a step that 

demonstrated the FAA’s commitment to building this community-based traffic management system. 

The FAA has been working with NASA and the UAS community on concept development and 

prototyping activities to ultimately enable a UTM ecosystem that provides management services to 

large-scale UAS operations in airspace where air traffic services are not provided (see Appendix A for 

more information on the UTM RTT). 

In 2017, the FAA’s initial application within the FAA’s UTM ecosystem - the sUAS Low Altitude 

Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC) - was deployed to provide UAS Operators access 

to controlled airspace near airports through near real-time processing of airspace authorizations 

below approved altitudes in controlled airspace. To support future operational requirements beyond 

2 | Page 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the current Part 101 and 107 regulations, NASA, in collaboration with FAA, is developing the 

prototype Flight Information Management System (FIMS). FIMS supports information exchanges and 

protocols for Operators to cooperatively share information and to access needed FAA-provided 

information for common situational awareness among all UTM stakeholders (Operators, other 

government agencies, and the FAA) and will be a core component of the overall UTM ecosystem. 

1.3 ConOps Scope 

This ConOps focuses on UTM operations below 400 feet above ground level (AGL). Most of the 

information presented will apply to UTM operations in any airspace under 400 ft, but operational and 

technical requirements may vary due to unique characteristics and implications of the airspace class 

in which UAS are operating. In this Version 1.0, the use cases presented are mostly specific to Class 

G operations. Class G airspace is the portion of airspace in the NAS that has not been designated as 

controlled airspace (i.e., Class A, B, C, D, or E). It is therefore designated uncontrolled airspace (see 

Figure 2). ATC has no responsibility to provide separation services in Class G airspace, rather, manned 

aircraft cooperatively manage their operations based on specified principles of operations. In order 

to provide UAS with the same access as manned aircraft, UTM is designed to provide a similar means 

of cooperative traffic management for UAS and other participating aircraft in this airspace. 

The FAA will develop subsequent ConOps versions that coincide with concept development of 

increasingly more complex UTM operations and environments across all airspace classes (see 

Appendix B for airspace class descriptions). The scope will be expanded to cover a range of operations 

in controlled airspace, as well as those that transit to and from a UTM environment and the ATM 

environment. 

Figure 2. UTM Operations in Context of Airspace Classes 

3 | Page 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.4 ConOps Objectives 

The objectives of this ConOps are to present a vision and describe the associated operational and 

technical requirements for developing and operating within a UTM environment. This ConOps does 

not prescribe solutions or specific implementation methods, unless for example purposes. Rather, it 

describes the essential conceptual and operational elements associated with UTM operations that 

will serve to inform development of solutions across the many actors and interested parties involved 

in implementing UTM. It is possible, and in fact, expected, that additional capabilities, services, and 

offerings, although non-essential, may be available within the UTM construct. These should adhere 

to the principles and conceptual elements described here. 

The ConOps document presents the following: 

• UTM operational concept, which provides the foundational principles around which UTM is 

based, a description of a conceptual architecture and associated UTM actors, and the 

concepts and operational requirements envisioned to provide a comprehensive set of traffic 

services, 

• Roles and responsibilities of the various actors and entities that interact with UTM, and 

• High-level use cases and operational threads that demonstrate the conduct of UTM 

operations. 

2 UTM Operational Concept 

2.1 Overview 

UTM is the manner in which the FAA will support operations for predominantly sUAS operating in 

low altitude airspace. UTM utilizes industry’s ability to supply services under FAA’s regulatory 

authority where these services do not currently exist. It is a community-based traffic management 

system, where the Operators are responsible for the coordination, execution, and management of 

operations, with rules of the road established by FAA. UTM is designed to support the demand and 

expectations for a broad spectrum of operations with ever-increasing complexity and risk. 

The term ‘UTM’ refers to a set of federated services and an all-encompassing framework for 

managing multiple UAS operations. These services are separate, but complementary to those 

provided by the ATM system, and are based primarily on the sharing of information between 

Operators on flight intent and airspace constraints. UTM can offer services for flight planning, 

communications, separation, and weather, among others. Appendix C provides a more 

comprehensive, but not exhaustive, list of UTM services. 

UTM is predicated on layers of information sharing and exchange - from Operator to Operator, 

vehicle to vehicle, and Operator to the FAA - to achieve safe operations. Operators share their flight 

4 | Page 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

intent with each other and coordinate to de-conflict and safely separate trajectories. The FAA has 

on-demand access to UTM operational information when needed. UAS are required to meet the 

requirements established for the type of operation and associated airspace volume/route in which 

they are operating - including the ability to contain operations within a specified airspace volume or 

remain clear of a specified volume. 

The primary means of communication and coordination between Operators, the FAA, and other 

stakeholders is through a distributed network of highly automated systems, and not between pilots 

and air traffic controllers via voice. The FAA makes real-time airspace constraints available to UAS 

Operators, via FIMS, and they are responsible for managing their own operations safely within these 

constraints without receiving ATC services from the FAA. UAS Operators may choose to use UAS 

Service Suppliers (USSs) to meet these obligations, or they may choose to provision their own set of 

services to meet these obligations. USSs provide UTM services to support the UAS community, to 

connect Operators and other entities to enable information flow across the USS network, and to 

promote shared situational awareness among UTM participants. 

UTM encompasses all infrastructure, policies, and procedures required to support low altitude UAS 

operations. UTM requires the establishment of regulatory frameworks, development of operating 

rules and performance requirements commensurate with demands of the operation, and a data 

exchange and information architecture that provides shared situational awareness among 

participants. UAS Operators are responsible for ensuring compliance with all FAA regulations. 

As the federal authority over operations in all airspace, and the regulator and oversight authority 

over commercial operations, the FAA ensures that UTM aligns with agency goals and meets the 

requirements for safe and efficient operations. Generally stated, the FAA will require increasing 

levels of UAS Operator engagement/interaction with UTM services as the complexity of the 

operations increases. 

To establish UTM, the FAA expects to: 

• Develop an UAS regulatory and traffic management framework that is compatible with the 

evolution of the technology required to support UTM. UTM infrastructure will evolve so that 

the use of a mature UTM ecosystem will support initiation of planned commercial operations. 

An example of this is LAANC, which supports the requirements of 14 CFR Parts 101(e) and 107 

rules and is considered an initial UTM capability. 

• Adopt an “authorize and assess” philosophy to meet the core concerns of this nascent 

industry. The operational use of UTM capabilities can be event-based, dictated either by 

density concerns, changes in the nature of allowed operations, or other, yet unknown, 

external factors. 

• Evolve UTM technology in a time-based fashion with a development plan that provides 

tested products to meet FAA and community needs, and/or provides insight and 

5 | Page 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

opportunity as the industry matures. UTM system requirements will evolve with the march 

to expanded operations, as foreseen in already-submitted Operator waiver requests, 

cooperative Pathfinder research initiatives, and BVLOS rulemaking. 

The FAA expects that the industry will seize opportunities to innovate and develop solutions to assist 

in the management of the increasing numbers of UAS operations now, and into the future. 

2.2 Benefits 

UTM federated services collectively enable the management and safe operation of large scale UAS 

operations in low altitude airspace. UTM provides: 

• An innovative approach to meeting service requirements, leveraging commercial services 

that place a much smaller infrastructure and manpower burden (cost) on the Government to 

implement, while greatly accelerating the provision of capabilities due to market forces and 

business incentive to meet consumer demand. This is consistent with the FAA’s approach for 

manned aircraft operations in Class G airspace. 

• A safe and stable environment for Operators to operate and meet business needs through 

shared situational awareness and an operational framework consisting of standards, 

regulations, and common protocols that reduce risk and maintain stability. 

• A flexible and extensible construct that can adapt and evolve as the trade space changes and 

matures. 

• A construct that allows the FAA to maintain its authority over the airspace, while allowing 

industry to manage operations in areas authorized for low altitude UAS flight. 

2.3 Notional Architecture 

With UTM, the FAA maintains its regulatory and operational authority for airspace and traffic 

operations; however, the operations are not managed via the ATM system. Rather, they are 

organized, coordinated, and managed by a federated set of actors in a distributed network of highly 

automated systems via application programming interfaces (APIs). Figure 3 depicts a notional UTM 

architecture that visually identifies, at a high level, the various actors and components, their 

contextual relationships, as well as high level functions and information flows. The black line in Figure 

3 represents the demarcation between the FAA and industry responsibilities in the infrastructure, 

services, and entities that interact as part of UTM. As shown, UTM comprises a sophisticated 

relationship between the FAA, the Operator, and the various entities providing services and/or 

demonstrating a demand for services within the UTM environment. The illustration highlights a 

model, which heavily leverages utilization of third party entities to support the FAA and the Operator 

in their respective roles and responsibilities. 

6 | Page 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3. Notional UTM Architecture 

2.4 Actors/Entities 

The UTM actors and entities are introduced in this section. Sections 2.5 and 2.6 further describe their 

roles and responsibilities in the overall airspace management approach to UTM and the specific 

operational elements that comprise the UTM construct. 

2.4.1 Operator 

The Operator is the person or entity responsible for the overall management of his/her UTM 

operations. The Operator meets regulatory responsibilities, plans flight/operations, shares operation 

intent information, and safely conducts operations using all available information. Use of the term 

‘Operator’ in this document is inclusive of airspace users electing to participate in UTM, including 

manned aircraft Operators, except when specifically called out as a manned or UAS Operator. 

2.4.2 Remote Pilot in Command/RPIC 

The RPIC is the person responsible for the safe conduct of each UAS flight. An individual may serve 

as both the Operator and the RPIC. The RPIC adheres to operational rules of the airspace in which 

7 | Page 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the UA is flying, avoids other aircraft, terrain and obstacles, assesses and respects airspace constraints 

and flight restrictions, and avoids incompatible weather/environments. The RPIC is capable of 

monitoring the flight performance and location of the UA. If safety of flight is compromised, due to 

sensor degradation or environmental vulnerabilities, the RPIC is aware of these factors and 

intervenes appropriately. More than one RPIC may take control of the aircraft at different, but 

sequential times during the flight, provided at least one person is responsible for the operation at 

any given time. 

2.4.3 UAS Service Supplier/USS 

A USS is an entity that provides services to support the safe and efficient use of airspace by providing 

services to the Operator in meeting UTM operational requirements. A USS (1) acts as a 

communications bridge between federated UTM actors to support Operators’ abilities to meet the 

regulatory and operational requirements for UAS operations, and (2) provides the Operator with 

demand forecasts for a volume of airspace so that the Operator can ascertain the ability to efficiently 

conduct their mission, and (3) archives operations data in historical databases for analytics, 

regulatory, and Operator accountability purposes. In general, these key functions allow for a network 

of USSs to provide cooperative management of low altitude operations without direct FAA 

involvement. USS services support operations planning, aircraft de-confliction, conformance 

monitoring, and emergency information dissemination. USSs may also work, if applicable, with local 

municipalities and communities to gather, incorporate, and maintain airspace restrictions and local 

airspace rules into airspace constraint data (e.g., preemptive airspace). USSs may also provide other 

value-added services to support UTM participants as market forces create opportunity to meet 

business needs. See Appendix D for a more detailed description of a USS. 

2.4.4 USS Network 

The term ‘USS Network’ refers to an amalgamation of shared UAS Operator data, or the mechanism 

by which Operators and mostly likely their supporting USSs share data or interact with one another 

(e.g., USS makes intent (or other) information available to all of the other USSs). In the UTM 

construct, multiple USSs can and will operate in the same geographical area and thus may support 

“overlapping” operations that require orchestration. In this environment, the USS network shares 

operational intent and other relevant details across the network to ensure shared situational 

awareness for UTM participants. Given this need for USSs to exchange a minimum set of data, the 

USS network must implement a shared paradigm, with methods for de-confliction or negotiation, and 

standards for the efficient and effective transmission of intent and changes to intent. This reduces 

risk to each USS and improves the overall capacity and efficiency in the shared space. The USS 

network is also expected to facilitate the ready availability of data to the FAA and other entities as 

required to ensure safe operation of the NAS, and any other collective information sharing functions, 

including security and identification. 

8 | Page 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.4.5 UAS Supplemental Data Service Suppliers 

USSs can access Supplemental Data Service Providers (SDSPs) via the USS network for essential or 

enhanced services (e.g. terrain and obstacle data, specialized weather data, surveillance, constraint 

information). SDSPs may also provide information directly to USSs or Operators through non-UTM 

network sources (e.g., public/private internet sites). 

2.4.6 Flight Information Management System/FIMS 

FIMS is a gateway for data exchange between UTM participants and FAA systems, through which the 

FAA can provide directives and make relevant NAS information available to UAS Operators via the 

USS Network. The FAA also uses this gateway as an access point for information on operations (as 

required) and is informed about any situations that could have an impact on the NAS. FIMS provides 

a mechanism for common situational awareness among all UTM participants and is a central 

component of the overall UTM ecosystem. FIMS is the UTM component the FAA will build and 

manage to support UTM operations. 

2.4.7 FAA 

The FAA is the federal authority over aircraft operations in all airspace, and the regulator and 

oversight authority for civil aircraft operations in the NAS. The FAA maintains an operating 

environment that ensures airspace users have access to the resources needed to meet their specific 

operational objectives and that shared use of airspace can be achieved safely and equitably. The FAA 

develops rules, regulations, policy and procedures as required to support these objectives. 

With UTM, the FAA’s primary role is to provide a regulatory and operational framework for 

operations and to provide FAA originated airspace constraint data to airspace users (e.g., airspace 

restrictions, facility maps, Special Use Airspace (SUA) Special Activity Airspace (SAA) activity). The 

FAA interacts with UTM for information/data exchange purposes as required, and has access to data 

at any time (via FIMS) to fulfill its obligations to provide regulatory and operational oversight. 

2.4.8 Ancillary Stakeholders 

Other stakeholders, such as public safety and the public, can also access and/or provide UTM services 

as an SDSP or via USSs/USS network. As a means to ensure safety of the airspace and persons and 

property on the ground, and ensure security and privacy of the public, public entities can access UTM 

operations data. This data can be routed directly to public entities such as the FAA, law enforcement, 

Department of Homeland Security, or other relevant government agencies on an as-needed basis. To 

accomplish this, a USS must be (1) discoverable to the requesting agency, (2) available and capable 

to comply with an issued request, and (3) a trusted source as mitigation actions may be taken as a 

result of the information provided. 

9 | Page 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.5 Operations 

All UAS Operators are expected to abide by the appropriate operating rules, regulations, and policies 

for the intended operation. With UTM, operations are supported by an environment designed to 

promote, through information exchanges, the analogous shared situational awareness that 

cooperative operations have always required. Thus, participation in UTM by aircraft Operators to the 

greatest extent possible is desired to achieve maximum benefit. As with classic operations, within 

UTM - the Operator, vehicle, and USS services are required to perform at a level sufficient to maintain 

separation at all times from all hazards in a fully accountable manner. The UTM operational 

framework ensures the safe conduct of aircraft operations through the issuance of performance 

authorizations that ensure operational and performance requirements are met, the sharing of flight 

intent and airspace constraint information among Operators, and the use of services, technologies, 

and equipage to de-conflict operations. Sections 2.5.1 through 2.5.6 further discuss these 

operational elements. 

2.5.1 Participation 

BVLOS UAS 

Participation in UTM is required for BVLOS UAS operations not participating in ATM. All BVLOS 

Operators are required to share intent and are encouraged to provide any additional data that can 

be used by USSs and other Operators to safely conduct their own operations, including, for example, 

in-flight position information, advisory reports, and contingency plans. 

Other Airspace Users 

UAS VLOS Operators and manned aircraft Operators have access to information regarding the 

conduct of UTM operations and are encouraged to participate in UTM to the extent possible to 

increase the breadth of situational awareness across Operators in shared airspace. Airspace users 

can voluntarily participate, at different levels: 

• Passive participation – Operators utilize information from the USS Network (Operation Intent 

of other Operators) to gain situational awareness of nearby operations and accordingly plan 

their activities, but do not make available any Operation Intent information to other 

Operators. 

• Active participation – Operators make their Operation Intent available to the USS Network, 

and thereby all other Operators/RPICs participating in UTM, fostering situational awareness 

for other participants with active operations near their own. 

VLOS UAS. UAS VLOS Operators are not required to participate in UTM, but may, and are 

encouraged to, voluntarily do so, through sharing of operation intent information, to obtain the 

safety benefits that are gained from shared awareness among airspace users. UAS VLOS actors 

also may participate in UTM by utilizing LAANC to meet their regulatory requirements (Part 101 

10 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

notifications/Part 107 authorizations). These requirements may be met through other means 

that do not involve use of UTM services (e.g., online FAA authorization request form). 

Manned Aircraft. Manned aircraft are not required to participate in UTM, but may, and are 

encouraged to, voluntarily do so as to obtain the safety benefits that are gained from shared 

awareness among airspace users. At minimum, manned aircraft Operators should access UTM 

shared intent data to gain awareness of UAS operations planned along their route of flight. More 

active manned aircraft participation, such as sharing of flight intent and/or sharing and receiving 

in-flight position information, would provide additional safety benefits for both manned and 

unmanned operations. 

2.5.2 Performance Authorization 

All BVLOS Operators are required to obtain a Performance Authorization from the FAA prior to 

conducting a UTM operation. A Performance Authorization is a FAA regulatory approval for BVLOS 

Operators to perform a specific type of operation in a specified geographical area. The FAA grants a 

Performance Authorization when a UAS Operator’s proposed ground and air assets are sufficient to 

meet an established level of performance in the airspace in which they intend to operate. 

An Authorized Area of Operation is a geographically defined area, which can be spatial and temporal, 

that is contained within the Performance Authorization for UTM operations. This airspace is not 

intended to be ‘blanket coverage’ nor devoid of manned aircraft operations (e.g., helicopters 

transiting the airspace, manned aircraft conducting agricultural operations). It is airspace where 

manned aircraft should anticipate a higher density of intended (and perhaps prioritized) use by UAS. 

The FAA would ensure, though, that certain operations, such as those conducted by Emergency 

Medical Services (EMS) or first responders, are given priority access to this airspace as required. 

Rather than develop a universal definition of this airspace, the FAA would consider the addition of 

commercial UAS Operators and evaluate their proposals, considering the overall effect on safety in 

various locations. 

To obtain a Performance Authorization, an Operator, using his/her own or shared resources, submits 

a Performance Authorization request to FAA Regulators for evaluation. Performance Authorization 

requests must be submitted by the Operator, not a USS/SDSP or other entity, regardless of whether 

the USS/SDSP will provide services or capability/technology packages to support the Operator’s 

ability to meet the performance requirements. USSs/SDSPs can, however, assemble, or supply 

material to support an Operator’s Performance Authorization request. 

The FAA evaluates the requests to ensure the requesting Operator can meet established performance 

levels for navigation, communications, sharing of intent, avoiding other vehicles, and connecting to 

the FAA near real time, in the airspace in which they intend to operate. If the performance level can 

be met, the FAA grants a Performance Authorization. 

11 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Initially it is expected that Performance Authorizations will require a case-by-case analysis, however, 

over time, as more are granted, USSs and/or industry may analyze submitted packages to identify 

specific sets of services and technology capabilities that resulted in approvals in different 

geographical areas. Industry may then begin to compile packages specific to those locations for 

Operators, streamlining Performance Authorization Requests, and possibly leading to the 

establishment of minimum performance standards for geographical locations over time. 

2.5.3 Authentication 

UAS must be registered in accordance with FAA rules and regulations prior to operating in the NAS. 

UTM expects an Operator’s registration is valid and may audit should conditions warrant. Operators 

are required to certify, register, and/or obtain all appropriate authorizations and to demonstrate 

compliance with performance and capability requirements per regulatory policy prior to performing 

UTM operations. USSs are required to demonstrate the minimum set of capabilities to support UTM 

operations for subscribing Operators. 

2.5.4 Operation Planning 

With UTM, flight intent is submitted and shared among Operators for situation awareness in the form 

of an operation plan – as distinguished from a ‘flight plan’ that is propagated through NAS/ATC 

automation systems for aircraft operations managed by ATC/ATM. The operation plan is developed 

prior to the operation and should indicate the volume of airspace within which the operation is 

expected to occur, the times and locations of the key events associated with the operation, including 

launch, recovery, and any other information deemed important (e.g., segmentation of the operation 

trajectory by time). How the operation plan is shared - full route, partial segments with another 

Operator - is still to be determined. 

The operation plan as proposed may be impacted by other planned operations (e.g., overlapping 

airspace volumes) or other constraints (e.g., FAA airspace restrictions), therefore the Operator should 

assess all appropriate information affecting the planned operation and make amendments to his plan 

as applicable. The Operator gathers this information and strategically de-conflict, potentially via USSprovided capabilities designed to develop equitable solutions (e.g., Operator collaboration and deconfliction algorithms); as well as access to FIMS to gather FAA provided airspace constraints and 

self-provisioned preemptive airspace restrictions that could affect the proposed flight. 

Once the operation plan is finalized, the Operator submits it via a USS (if not self-provisioning 

services2

). USSs then share that intent with other Operators via the USS Network. Following 

submission, USSs continue to offer de-confliction support up to and during the intended operation. 

2 An Operator has the option to act as their own USS, if they meet all requirements for service provision (e.g. can 

communicate with other USSs, can send/receive information from the FAA, etc.) and have gone through 

applicable federal and/or industry vetting processes. 

12 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Operator considers USS provided information and chooses to submit intent, or alters his plan in 

favor of better operational conditions, understanding that he is responsible for ensuring separation 

at the time of operation, not the USS. In the event of an airspace conflict during the intent sharing 

process, Operators unable to separate from other aircraft by another means (e.g., detect and avoid) 

are encouraged to de-conflict their operation by shifting temporal or spatial elements of their plan 

or negotiating solutions with Operators whose volume(s) overlap via their USS. 

2.5.5 Constraint Information & Advisories 

Central to UTM is a shared situational awareness based on knowledge of all available constraint and 

advisory information in the UTM network. Advisories, weather information, other UTM participant 

observations, and a variety of other information may be made available through the UTM network 

and should be factored into the Operator’s planning and execution to ensure safe conduct of UTM 

operations. 

UAS Operators within UTM are responsible for identifying unexpected operational conditions or flight 

hazards that may affect their operation. This information is collected and assessed both prior to and 

during the operation in order to ensure the safe conduct of their operation. USSs may supply airspace 

constraint and advisory information through services to support the Operator responsibility. Near 

real-time advisories are provided by authoritative sources and information providers through the USS 

network and made available to affected users regarding: 

• Traffic (e.g., aircraft unknown to the USS network, non-conforming flights), and 

• Weather and winds (e.g., unexpected wind gusts or storm), 

• Other hazards pertinent to low altitude flight (e.g., unexpected obstacles such as a crane 

NOTAM or power-line construction, bird activity, local UAS restrictions, and other UASspecific hazard information). 

Although USSs are likely to be primary distributors of information, Operators are responsible for 

gathering these data. It is possible Operators may pull from other sources (e.g., SDSPs) or that USSs 

may pull data from other sources in support of the Operator. Operators may also support advisory 

information distribution by reporting phenomenon encountered during flight to their USS for 

network-wide distribution to other potentially impacted Operators. These are referred to as 

Unmanned Aircraft Reports or ‘UREPs’3

, and are comparable to manned aircraft pilot reports 

(PIREPs). 

The Operator maintains a communication with the USS, in compliance with performance 

authorization criteria and regulatory requirements, to support data exchange that assists with 

meeting requirements for the operation (e.g., real-time aircraft tracking, airspace restrictions). 

3 Rios, Smith, Smith, "UAS Reports (UREPS): Enabling Exchange of Observation Data Between UAS Operations", 2017 

13 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advisories designating Dynamic Restrictions on UAS operations may also be originated by authorized 

entities and routed through the USS Network (where USSs use the information to notify affected 

subscribers) to FAA infrastructure/associated services - which may include FIMS components, cloud 

assets, and SWIM services based on allocation of functionality to meet the stakeholder needs. 

Dynamic Restrictions limit UAS access to blocks of airspace, are generally short in duration (hours, as 

opposed to days or weeks), are generally smaller in size than a constraint such as a TFR, and can be 

initiated by approved USSs with appropriate certifications/authorizations. These advisories serve to 

establish transient restrictions on UAS operations due to police activity, priority operations, public 

safety, and other conditions that warrant temporary cessation of noncritical UAS operations. 

Operators receiving advisories take corrective action or respond to the event accordingly and provide 

confirmation of their compliance with the advisory. 

2.5.6 Separation 

Although UTM provides traffic management services, Operators are ultimately responsible for 

maintaining separation from other aircraft, airspace, weather, terrain, and hazards, and avoiding 

unsafe conditions throughout their operations. 

The Operator (RPIC if separate entity) is responsible for remaining within the bounds of his/her flight 

volume(s) and tracking the aircraft location during all phases of flight with performance criteria 

appropriate for the operation performed. The Operator monitors for vehicle non-conformance or 

on-board equipment failures or degradation (e.g., lost link, engine failure). The Operator likely 

incorporates these monitoring functions into the UAS (vehicle and ground control equipment) such 

that he is alerted quickly and can take necessary corrective action. For situations where corrections 

cannot be made, Operators are responsible for notifying affected airspace users as soon as practical 

and executing a predictable response. USSs can assist the Operator in providing tracking and 

conformance monitoring capabilities and notifying affected airspace users (in UTM and ATM 

environments) when an event occurs. For off-nominal situations requiring FAA attention or 

intervention, the USS notifies the FAA of, and sends data required to manage, the event via FIMS. 

In-flight coordination with other Operators and their RPICs is the responsibility of the Operator. They 

may utilize services of a USS to facilitate this coordination via the USS network, but may also utilize 

on-board communications, navigation, and sense and avoid equipment to maintain separation 

tactically. In the event intent needs to be updated in-flight, USSs accommodate Operator updates. 

USSs and/or SDSPs support the Operator by supplying weather, terrain, and obstacle clearance data 

specific to the area of operation during the pre-flight planning phase to ensure strategic management 

of UTM operations as well as in-flight updates ensuring separation provision. The USS shall maintain 

and provide near real-time and forecast weather information for the region to UAS Operators. 

Operators monitor weather and winds throughout flight, and act responsibly in the event of 

environmental or weather phenomena and factors are incompatible with safe flight for their 

operation/aircraft. Using their in-flight connection, Operators also monitor terrain and obstacle data 

14 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

to ensure the aircraft does not collide with the ground, wires, terrain, mountains, or other obstacles. 

The data provider shall maintain and provide the most current terrain/obstacle database in order to 

develop accurate avoidance information for the subject mission. 

2.6 Allocation of Responsibilities 

Table 1 summarizes roles and responsibilities of the UAS Operator, USS, and FAA for the various 

services and functions associated with operating in a UTM environment. 

15 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

-

- -

No UAS Z )

decl ti ubli f t )

-

-

Table 1. Allocation of Responsibilities for UTM Actors/Entities 

Service/Function 

Actors/Entities 

• = Primary responsibility 

UAS 

Op t 

USS FAA 

Separation 

VLOS UAS from VLOS UAS • S 

VLOS UAS from BVLOS UAS • S 

BVLOS UAS from BVLOS UAS • S 

VLOS UAS from Low Altitude Manned A/C • S 

BVLOS UAS from Low Altitude Manned A/C * • S 

Hazard/ 

Terrain 

Avoidance 

Weather Avoidance • S 

Terrain Avoidance • S 

Obstacle Avoidance • S 

Status 

UTM Operations Status •

Flight Information Archive • S 

Flight Information Status • S 

Advisories 

Weather Information S 

Alert Affected Airspace Users of UAS Hazard • S 

Hazard Information (e.g., Obstacles, terrain) S 

UAS Specific Hazard Information (e.g., Power Lines, S 

Planning, 

Intent & 

Authorization 

Priority Status Notification (e.g., emergency • S 

Operation Plan Development • S 

Operation Intent Sharing (pre flight) • S 

Operation Intent Sharing (in flight) • S 

Operation Intent Negotiation • S 

Operations 

Management 

Demand Capacity Management •

Airspace Access Management •

Control of Flight •

Airspace Allocation & Constraints Definition S •

* Manned aircraft pilots share responsibility for separation with UAS BVLOS operations. 

2.7 Airspace Management 

UTM is designed to ensure UAS operations are authorized, safe, secure, and equitable in terms of 

airspace access. UTM imposes requirements on operations and performance commensurate with 

the associated considerations for Operator, vehicle, services, operational environment, and airspace 

16 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

class. UTM airspace management is predicated on a layered approach to safety through the 

following: 

• Use of performance authorizations and certifications ensuring Operators, equipment, and 

USSs meet the appropriate capability and performance requirements for the operations 

planned, 

• Strategic traffic management of operations through interactive pre-flight planning, 

• Separation provision through in-flight situational awareness of UTM participant intent 

and airspace constraints, 

• Contingency management through the development of plans and triggers for unexpected 

operational anomalies, and 

• Collision avoidance through appropriate ground based and onboard equipage 

In addition, security of the airspace is ensured through the collection, maintenance, and provision of 

identity information for UTM operations, vehicles, and Operators via vehicle registration, Operator 

logs, USS services, and appropriate vehicle identification mechanisms. Finally, equity of airspace 

access for UTM operations is ensured through appropriate performance authorizations and operation 

orchestration/Operator negotiation to optimize airspace use among the participants. UTM does 

provide the ability to prioritize use of airspace for operations deemed a public priority through the 

issuance of Dynamic Restrictions for other UTM operations in the affected airspace. 

2.7.1 Safety 

While the FAA/ATC does not play a direct role in the provision of separation services to UTM 

operations, it does establish operational and technical requirements for UTM to ensure safe 

operations. Safe operations pertain to the safety of people and property on the ground, as well as in 

the air. UTM has multiple layers of separation assurance to ensure the safe conduct of operations, 

from Strategic Management to more real-time Separation Provision and Contingency 

Management, to real-time Collision Avoidance capabilities. 

Strategic Management 

UTM operations are strategically managed through interactive planning and orchestration of intent 

information as well as relevant environmental considerations that enable strategic de-confliction for 

multiple UAS operations. The sharing of operation intent, airspace constraint de-confliction, and 

supplemental data sharing are key supporting features of UTM that reduce the need for tactical 

separation management and/or reduce the likelihood of in-flight intent changes due to weather or 

airspace restrictions. 

Operators planning to operate BVLOS are required to share operation intent with other 

Operators/airspace users via a USS. Intent data predominantly consists of the spatial and temporal 

elements of an operation. At a minimum, operation intent includes operation volumes and the 

17 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

associated ‘active’ times. Operation volumes are four-dimensional (4D) shapes with specified ceilings 

and floors that encompass the operation’s flight profile within an authorized area of operation, as 

specified in the Performance Authorization. The 4-dimensional (space and time) nature of the 

volumes enable USSs to de-conflict operations, when possible, prior to, and during flight to maximize 

safety. Operation volumes can take a variety of forms (e.g. 4D discs, tubes, or complex shapes) and 

can be stationary or moving. A single or multiple operation volume(s) may be defined for a single 

operation. The actual requirements on volume shape, size, and time increments will vary based on 

the types and potential density of UAS operations. Operators unable to provide and maintain 

operations within their volumes may have restricted access during times of high density UTM 

operations. Operators should minimize airspace volumes when possible, whether defining a route 

or area of land, to allow for others to strategically de-conflict, including shifting their time of access. 

USSs assist with minimizing airspace volume overlap and optimize airspace efficiency and access. 

Other data beyond intent is likely required during the intent sharing process, some of which may be 

shared with the USS network to support USS service provisions, some of which may be confidential, 

proprietary information that is shared only between an Operator and their respective USS. From a 

service provision perspective, pre-programmed vehicle responses and other data required to support 

separation management functions and contingency handling during nominal and off-nominal events 

is available for sharing with the USS as appropriate (e.g., RPIC contact number, planned response to 

loss of command and control link). 

Operator data submitted during the planning stage do not need to be verified with agency records 

for compliance at the time of submission (e.g., compliance with Performance Authorization 

stipulations - Area of Authorization, pilot certifications, use of specified equipment /technologies) but 

Operator accounts and records are subject to FAA auditing at the agency’s discretion. 

Intent data serves several primary functions. It (1) informs other Operators, manned and unmanned, 

of nearby operations to promote safety and shared awareness, (2) enables de-confliction of 

operation volumes (i.e., strategic separation), (3) enables identification and distribution of known 

airspace constraints/restrictions for the intended area of operation, (4) enables distribution of 

weather and supplemental data that affects operations for the intended location and time, and (5) 

supports cooperative separation management services (e.g., conformance monitoring, 

notifications/alerts). 

Intent information is made available by Operators to UTM participants and other airspace users via 

the USS Network to promote situational awareness and support cooperative interactions. Manned 

and unmanned Operators (e.g., Part 107/101(e) Operators) not participating in UTM, but operating 

near or below 400’AGL, are encouraged to, at minimum, identify operations that could impact their 

route of flight as part of their preflight responsibilities. 

Real-time NAS airspace constraint data is available to the USS Network via FIMS to separate proposed 

operation volumes from flight restrictions, SAA/SUA activity, or other airspace management decisions 

18 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

that affect UTM operations. The USS makes Operators aware of any NAS constraints or preemptive 

airspace restrictions that could affect the proposed flight, including: 

• NAS Airspace Constraints: The USS accesses the FAA’s NAS real-time airspace constraint data, 

made available via FIMS, to identify whether there are any NAS constraints or restrictions on 

the airspace at the flight times requested. Known constraints are made available to the 

Operator who has the option to alter their flight intent to ensure de-confliction of airspace 

constraints. 

• Preemptive Airspace: Many states have passed laws that regulate or prohibit the flight, 

weaponization, and surveillance use of UAS in select airspace to preserve the rights of its 

citizens. The USS works with states, municipalities, and other entities as required ensuring 

local airspace access restrictions, or preemptions, are incorporated into, and maintained in, 

the USS Network and Operation Volumes are de-conflicted from these areas during the intent 

sharing processes. 

Intent sharing also enables weather forecasting and supplemental data sharing that assists the 

Operator with determining whether environmental conditions or other factors are suitable for flight 

in their intended location at the specific date and time being submitted (e.g., weather and wind 

prediction, planned obstacles). These data assists Operators with determining whether they can 

meet their responsibilities (e.g., weather, hazard/obstacles awareness) for safe flight or successfully 

complete their intended mission (e.g., sensor sensitivities) given the predicted conditions. 

USSs continue to monitor for, and notify Operators of, changes or conflicts, leading up to and 

including flight, that could affect the safety of the operation. This includes analysis of FAA airspace 

constraint data on airspace changes/restrictions, SUA/SAA status, and published emergencies. 

Operators assess the potential impacts to their operation and choose whether to make changes to 

their operation based on their assessment. 

Strategic management services alone may be sufficient to ensure the safety of UAS operations of low 

complexity. For example, a BVLOS Operator conducting a flight in a rural/remote area (where UTM 

and other UAS /manned activity at low altitudes is relatively sparse) shares intent via the USS 

Network, providing others the information necessary to maintain separation. Due to the low density 

of operations at these low altitudes, those who become aware of this operation via a USS plan around 

that operation - or when objectives result in a potential overlap, spatial or temporal adjustments are 

established to ensure strategic separation. 

Separation Provision 

UTM services/capabilities support a range of BVLOS UAS operations in authorized areas of operation 

from rural areas with minimal manned aircraft activity and no people or property on the ground, to 

vicinities with manned aircraft over moderately populated areas in suburban areas or close to 

airports. The corresponding requirements for separation provision - in terms of data exchange, 

19 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

tracking and conformance monitoring, technologies/equipage, and Operator responsibilities - are 

commensurate with the risks to people and property. Aircraft/capability requirements are addressed 

in the Performance Authorization obtained by the Operator prior to the operation. 

UAS Operators share separation responsibility with other UAS Operators (BVLOS and VLOS) and other 

airborne traffic. UAS Operators desiring to operate in areas with high or heterogeneous traffic may 

be required to equip with sense and avoid technologies to meet these responsibilities. Low altitude 

manned aircraft operating in both uncontrolled and controlled airspace, have access to, and are 

encouraged to, utilize UTM services to gain situational awareness of nearby UTM operations; lowaltitude manned aircraft pilots share responsibility with BVLOS UAS Operators for maintaining 

separation from each other (though they do not share responsibility for separation from VLOS UAS 

Operators). Manned aircraft should be able to see and avoid UAS - which could require UAS comply 

with cospicuity requirements designed to increase visibility. 

During flight, the Operator is responsible for complying with all rules and regulations associated with 

the operation, including avoiding other aircraft, complying with airspace restrictions, and avoiding 

terrain and obstacles. UAS Operators share separation responsibility with other UAS Operators 

(BVLOS and VLOS), manned, and other airborne traffic. Commercial services, or third-party providers, 

assist Operators in meeting responsibilities. For operations in areas with minimal air traffic, alerts 

regarding known or uncooperative traffic may assist Operators with maintaining separation. The 

Operator maintains a continuous connection with the USS to support data exchange pertaining 

aircraft tracking and monitoring, terrain and obstacle clearance data, weather constraints and/or 

notifications or directives regarding airspace constraints, traffic, or other hazards that could affect 

the flight. In the case of a notification or alert, the RPIC responsible for the overall safety of the flight 

acts accordingly. 

When UAS operate over people or in areas where manned aircraft are more prevalent, Operators are 

capable of identifying and maintaining separation from all aircraft, including both UTM participants 

and non-participants. This may be done using USS in-flight de-confliction services designed to identify 

and alert Operators of airborne traffic or through ground-based or airborne technological solutions 

(e.g., position sharing, V2V equipment, ground-based radar detection data, ADS-B in or out, sense 

and avoid capabilities). USSs can further assist with in-flight separation responsibilities by providing 

services that assist Operators with staying within the bounds of their volume (e.g. aircraft tracking 

and conformance monitoring services), disseminating information that facilitates avoidance of flight 

hazards (e.g., weather/wind information, terrain and obstacle data, manned traffic alerts), and 

coordinating with affected airspace users to facilitate effective airspace management responses in 

the event of a contingency. 

All low-altitude aircraft sharing airspace do so with a clear understanding of responsibilities, rules, 

and procedures, regardless of whether they are participating in/receiving services from UTM or ATM. 

Right of way rules, established procedures, and safe operating rules enable harmonized interaction 

when aircraft encounter one another. Though low altitude operating manned aircraft and VLOS 

unmanned aircraft (e.g., 14 CFR Part 107 and 101[e] operations) are not required to participate in 

20 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UTM, they are encouraged to utilize UTM services to, at minimum, identify UAS operations that may 

affect their route of flight to increase the likelihood they identify UAS. 

UTM BVLOS Operators must be capable of tracking their vehicle and remaining within the bounds of 

their shared intent volumes. USSs can assist Operators in meeting this requirement through vehicle 

tracking and conformance monitoring services whereby UAS transmit near-real time tracking data to 

the USS, so the USS can provide services that enable Operators to monitor the unmanned aircraft’s 

(UA’s) position and conformance to applicable system-based boundaries during BVLOS portions of 

flight. 

For BVLOS operations in uncontrolled, Class G airspace – UAS Operators are not required to notify 

the FAA prior to or during flights unless they experience an off-nominal event or contingency situation 

that requires FAA attention and/or intervention (e.g., rogue UAS – threat of entering controlled 

airspace). The FAA makes real-time NAS constraint data available to the USS through FIMS to support 

airspace management services, but it does not receive data – intent data or otherwise - from the USS 

during nominal operations. In the event that an off-nominal situation requires FAA attention or 

intervention, the USS notifies the FAA of the event via FIMS. 

To ensure pre-emption of airspace when appropriate, authorized USSs are able to designate a 

Dynamic Restriction for an area/block of airspace, where all UTM/UAS operations must cease (e.g., 

to allow EMS or first responder access). Dynamic Restrictions can be requested by authorized entities 

(e.g., law enforcement, fire department) and approved/distributed by these authorized USSs. If 

approved, an automatic notification is sent to the USS Network so that affected UTM participants can 

be identified and informed of the constraint; additionally, a notification is sent to the FAA through 

FIMS so that other relevant NAS stakeholders may have access to information. Operators are 

responsible for remaining outside the restricted area (unless waived), until it is released. Vehicles 

following a pre-programmed route and/or with automated vehicle responses that would violate an 

airspace restriction (e.g., programmed lost link contingency response) must possess some method of 

intervention capable of preventing intrusion in restricted airspace (e.g., re-program route in flight, 

manual intervention). USSs provide Operators real-time notifications regarding the restriction and 

accommodate real-time adjustments to operation intent. 

Operators assemble weather and wind data, terrain and obstacle information, traffic alert data, and 

other supplemental service-provided data pertinent to flight to assist them in meeting their 

responsibilities for safe flight. Weather services equip the Operator with information regarding 

winds, temperatures, pressure, precipitation, and visibility. Operators are encouraged to submit 

UREPs on observed weather phenomena and other aviation information (e.g., uncooperative traffic) 

so that this information can be shared across the USS network with other affected subscribers. 

Operators are responsible for ensuring actual or reserved endurance and/or fuel levels are 

maintained to remain compliant with rules or regulations or to support safe operations. 

Endurance/fuel levels (actual or reserves) may be provided to the USS to enable monitoring and alerts 

21 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

for endurance level checks and/or enable estimates of endurance levels in the event of a contingency 

(e.g., estimation of fuel/endurance levels when aircraft is not expected to return to conformance). 

Contingency Management 

Operators provide real-time management of their operations and are actively engaged in keeping 

information updated during their operations to ensure shared situational information among UTM 

participants. This includes making others aware of mission changes due to Operator prerogative as 

well as unexpected operational factors that impact the operation. The Operator needs to have 

continuous interaction with the UTM community to ensure continuity and safe orchestration of 

operations. 

In the event of contingency, the Operator is responsible for notifying the network of a change in 

status which allows affected airspace users to be alerted. A USS can support/assist the Operator in 

meeting this obligation through communications with affected UAS Operators, appropriate FAA 

entities, and other airspace users as appropriate, via the USS network. In the event an active flight is 

experiencing a critical on-board equipment failure or degradation (e.g., lost link, engine failure); not 

tracking or vehicle position is unknown for some period of time; not conforming to flight intent and/or 

conformance is not expected to be restored - the Operator notifies their USS of the contingency event 

as soon as practical. Contingency procedures or protocols, such as pre-programmed vehicle loss of 

command and control link responses, shared with the USS during the operation planning process, or 

updated in-flight, facilitate USS Network-wide de-confliction of affected flights. USSs share data 

regarding potential hazards with impacted airspace users across the USS network. Impacted parties 

enact necessary measures to respond to the threat. 

The USS also notifies potentially impacted non-UTM users of off-nominal or potentially hazardous 

situations (e.g., potentially affected public/private entities), providing all known data to assist with 

managing the situation effectively (e.g., tracking information, pre-programmed contingency 

procedure, RPIC contact information). Non–UTM users could include public/private/commercial 

entities (e.g., balloon Operators, the Department of Defense, non-towered airport) and in the event 

the ATM system could be impacted, the FAA. 

UAS Operators within UTM are required to notify the FAA if they experience an off-nominal event or 

contingency situation that requires FAA attention and/or intervention (e.g., rogue UAS – threat of 

entering controlled airspace). If an off-nominal situation requires FAA intervention, the FAA has ondemand access to information regarding UTM operations. The FAA FIMS gateway provides a 

continuous connection through which the USS Network can provide UTM operations data, including 

flight status, aircraft location (if known), and intent information until the event is contained. USSs 

send notification of errant flights, along with required data, to FIMS for routing to the appropriate 

ATC facilities/entities. 

Once a contingency event is contained and safety is restored, the USS provides notice of recovery to 

affected entities, including the USS Network, for distribution to airspace users. The USS Network 

22 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

notifies the FAA via FIMS, providing data required to restore nominal operations and comply with 

FAA facility/agency reporting requirements and procedures. FIMS routes the data according to 

established protocol. 

Collision Avoidance 

In the UTM environment, BVLOS UAS share responsibility with other BVLOS UAS and manned aircraft 

for collision avoidance. Because the risks associated with different areas of operation can vary, the 

requirements for onboard collision avoidance systems for UAS may vary. In airspace where risk to 

life in the air and on the ground is low, a relatively higher risk of sUAS-to-sUAS collision may be 

accepted, and thus the FAA may not need to require collision avoidance technologies. Conversely, 

operations in more heterogeneous (e.g., mix of manned and unmanned aircraft, controlled airspace) 

environments could impose increased risk to manned aircraft due to the higher criticality of collision, 

therefore, increased performance requirements may be imposed (e.g., onboard systems, real-time 

avoidance equipment, network based solutions). 

It is likely that geographical area, proposed airborne and ground assets, and other criteria will be 

taken into consideration during the Performance Authorization process, and collision avoidance 

requirements will be tailored to each operational situation. It is expected that V2V communication 

between both UAS and manned aircraft will include position of craft and Operator to ensure collision 

avoidance at intervals appropriate to the craft and operation per the Performance Authorization and 

appropriate regulatory requirements. 

2.7.2 Security 

In addition to ensuring safety, security is a priority of UTM, and expectation of the public. Security 

refers to the protection against threats that stem from intentional acts (e.g., terrorism, or 

unintentional acts, such as human error or natural disasters affecting aircraft, people, and/or 

property in the air or on the ground). UTM should therefore contribute to security, and UTM-related 

information should be protected from external and internal security threats. Security risk 

management goals include balancing the needs of the members of the UTM community that require 

access to the airspace with the need to protect UTM participants, the public, and property. In the 

event of threats to aircraft or threats using aircraft, UTM provides relevant information and 

assistance to responsible authorities. 

UTM goals include ensuring safety, security, and accountability of UAS operations, including the 

sharing of identification information regarding the operation plans and execution data, Operator, 

vehicle, and supporting services. Identification data (ID) and appropriate metadata (e.g., Operator 

and position of aircraft during an operation) are managed and provided based on the need to know 

and credentials of the entity. The public may access identification information through USS services 

or broadcast ID if that is required. Law enforcement and other authorized entities may access 

information such as UAS identification, Operator information, UAS position reported throughout the 

23 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

operation, V2V broadcast Operator and position data, and other data perhaps protected in short and 

long-range communication links. 

Further, UTM supports requisite security and accountability functions. The UAS operating community 

meet security requirements levied by appropriate authorities (e.g., FAA, DOD) designed to guard NAS 

systems and architectures against security threats. UTM meets applicable security requirements 

through data collection and provision protocols, ensuring operations data is collected, archived, and 

available to support stakeholder needs. 

NAS Operations 

From an FAA regulatory and safety perspective, UTM intent data/operation plans provide a means of 

traceability to (1) ensure Operators are complying and conforming to regulatory standards, (2) 

identify and hold accountable those who are responsible during accident/incident investigations, and 

(3) inform other NAS users, if needed, of UAS activity in the vicinity of the airspace in which they are 

operating. With UTM, USSs archive data per FAA requirements and ensure that data is available to 

the FAA as needed to support those objectives. Archived data also provides the FAA a means to 

analyze UTM operations-and ensure NAS needs and safety objectives are being met. 

The FAA has the ability to access stored or archived information related to the UTM operations as 

required, including information filed with the USSs in the Operation Intents on demand if the situation 

warrants. USS operations data is available on demand through FIMS, and in Operator/USS data 

repositories, for FAA access upon request. FAA may require operational data to be logged / archived 

by Operators in order to support the FAA and other federal entities requesting Operator logs and 

associated operational information (e.g., safety, security, or post-hoc analysis of events of interest). 

NAS Systems 

UTM introduces new security vulnerabilities and challenges due to UAS reliance on interconnectivity 

and integration. These vulnerabilities include the potential for increased threats to system security 

and unintended degradation of system performance. Third party commercial entities share data with 

FAA systems in order to enable the UTM system, creating a need for third party networks to link to 

government assets providing potential opportunities for cyber incidents and attacks. Creation of 

cybersecurity architectures requirements and structures are developed and in place to mitigate 

potential for malicious activities and prevent unlawful access to FAA systems. 

Distributed UAS architectures can be manipulated in ways that can impact the safety and security of 

people on the ground and in the air. Command and control link infrastructure, security of ground 

control stations, GPS signal vulnerabilities, among other things, create potential for misuse 

(intentional and unintentional) and malicious interference (e.g., hacking, hostile takeovers) of UAS 

technologies. UAS accessibility, flexibility, and payload potential also give rise public privacy and 

safety concerns (e.g., ability to surveil citizens in situations where they could otherwise reasonably 

expect privacy). The FAA considers security risks and requirements proposed for an operation during 

24 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the Performance Authorization process and evaluates the adequacy of proposed solutions (e.g., 

encrypted links). When unlawful activity is detected, response protocols are enabled through UTM 

data transmission capabilities (e.g., via USS Network access to public entities). A communication, 

navigation, and surveillance tracking technology, coupled with the information service of legally 

operating commercial UAS, supports identification of illegal operations. These same capabilities, and 

others, may be used by law enforcement to track vehicle registration data and identify geographical 

positioning of perpetrator(s). 

2.7.3 Equity 

UTM provides an operating environment that ensures all airspace users have right of access to 

airspace needed to meet their specific operational requirements and that the shared use of airspace 

by different users can be achieved safely. The FAA ensures that within the cooperative rules and 

processes for the shared UTM enterprise, there is no assumption of priority that would diminish 

equity of access for users that have received a Performance Authorization to operate in the airspace. 

In airspace with moderate airspace demand, equitable access is achieved through Operator 

collaboration, efficient airspace design, and FAA rules. If demand for a volume of airspace becomes 

too great to maintain safety of flight, or support all types of operations, the FAA may be required to 

provide demand management of access, but only for that purpose. 

Airspace Access 

When UTM demand/capacity imbalances arise, and Operators have already planned and shared their 

intent with the network, USSs assist with resolving/minimizing the issues via alteration of spatial or 

temporal elements of the operation intent and/or Operator collaboration/negotiation. Operators 

adjust plans to de-conflict overlapping airspace according to personal preferences or with USS tools. 

USSs collaborative flight planning capabilities (e.g., route planning functions, airspace configuration 

options) offer equitable solutions to competing Operators or Operators negotiate with one another 

via USS collaborative tools (e.g., real-time Operator exchanges) to identify acceptable alternate plans 

that minimize volume overlap. FAA right of way rules are imposed when collaborative de-confliction 

cannot successfully resolve demand issues. Operators and USSs consider airspace volume efficiency 

during the intent sharing process to optimize UTM-wide airspace capacity. Operators and USSs also 

facilitate prompt release of unused airspace (e.g., notify USS network airspace is released when a 

flight ends earlier than projected). In the event that demand for UTM airspace makes safety or equity 

no longer achievable through Operator coordination and USS-assisted operation orchestration, the 

FAA may issue directives/protocols limiting access to UTM airspace to resolve capacity/demand 

issues. 

Priority Flights 

Priority access demands ensure preemption of airspace when appropriate. The FAA is able to identify 

an area where all UAS operations must cease to ensure that certain operations, such as EMS or firstresponders, can be given priority access to this airspace when necessary. Temporary flight 

25 | P a g e 
2 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

restrictions (e.g., Dynamic Restriction) are enacted to clear all unwaived flights from the restricted 

airspace. 

3 UTM Use Cases 

This section contains a set of use cases that illustrate operations in predominantly uncontrolled 

airspace and interactions within the UTM environment. They are a subset of the total inventory 

developed under the auspices of the UTM RTT. For a full list of use cases developed in support of 

V1.0, see Appendix E. 

The use cases presented here focus on different aspects of unmanned operations: multiple actors 

work together to foster shared situational awareness between Operators/RPICs, creation and 

dissemination of airspace constraints that affect UAS Operators and interactions with manned 

aircraft. Table 2 shows a high-level summary of each use case. 

Table 2. Use Case Summary 

Use Title Summary 

Case 

1 BVLOS Operations in BVLOS Operators (not Part 101e or 107 applicable regulations in 

Uncontrolled Airspace: development) flying in uncontrolled airspace participate in UTM by 

Mandatory UTM sharing operation intent, thereby gaining shared situational 

Participation awareness. 

Dynamic Restriction in 

Uncontrolled Airspace 

An authorized USS approves a request for and creates/distributes a 

Dynamic Restriction affecting UAS operations in uncontrolled 

airspace. UTM participants receive alerts when in or near the 

restriction via the USS to which they are subscribed. VLOS UAS 

Operators and other NAS stakeholders not participating in UTM gain 

knowledge of the restriction through other channels. 

26 | P a g e

3 BVLOS UAS and Manned 

Aircraft Interactions in 

Uncontrolled Airspace 

Multiple scenarios explore methods by which UAS and manned aircraft 

gain situational awareness of each other - including informationsharing via the USS Network, cooperative V2V communications, and 

SAA technologies. 

4 VLOS Operations in 

Uncontrolled and 

Controlled Airspace: 

Voluntary UTM 

Participation 

Part 101e and/or Part 107 VLOS Operators flying in uncontrolled and 

controlled airspace (not near an airport) voluntarily participate in UTM, 

thereby gaining shared situational awareness. 

3.1 BVLOS Operations in Class G (Uncontrolled) Airspace: Mandatory UTM 

Participation 

This use case assumes that BVLOS operations occur in uncontrolled airspace, are not near an airport, 

and are limited to flight under 400 feet AGL. BVLOS Operators are required to actively participate in 

UTM, in which they make their Operation Intent available to the USS Network (and thereby all other 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Operators/RPICs participating in UTM), fostering situational awareness for other participants with 

active operations near their own. 

The Operator must have a Performance Authorization from the FAA, which grants an Authorized Area 

of Operations (geographic location in which the Operator is allowed to perform types of operations 

that fall under the constraints of the authorization). In uncontrolled airspace, authorization for 

individual operations is not required; as many operations as desired can be performed while the 

Performance Authorization is valid (i.e., before it expires). 

BVLOS RPICs are required to have any applicable airmen’s certificate when conducting BVLOS flights. 

Planning 

The Operator submits his operation intent for a flight he wishes to conduct, using tools provided by 

the USS to which he is subscribed. The Operator receives information from his USS on known UTM 

operations that need to be considered during planning of his own; this information is shared by other 

Operators subscribed to his USS, as well as by Operators subscribed to different USSs (via the USS 

Network), who will be conducting operations in the same area during similar times. 

Upon completion of developing his operation intent, the USS, the USS sets the operation status (part 

of the operation intent) to “Accepted” and makes the operation intent available to the USS Network. 

Other USSs are now aware of this new operation; they provide notice/alerts to other Operators and 

RPICs who may need to know of it. 

Flight 

The UAS is prepared for take-off, and the immediate airspace is evaluated for safe launch. With 

preparations complete, the RPIC notifies his USS he is about to take off; the USS sets the Operation 

Status to “Activated” and makes the update available to the USS Network (alerting other Operators 

of the newly-active operation near them). 

The RPIC receives an acknowledgement of activation from the USS and takes off. The operation 

volume(s) is/are considered active per scheduled times (provided in the operation intent). 

The RPIC may be required to share position data from his UAS with his USS, allowing the USS to 

provide conformance-monitoring services. The RPIC flies in accordance with his operation intent, 

maintaining separation from other UAS and manned aircraft. 

NOTE: Should the UAS be in a state incongruent with his shared operation intent, the Operation Status 

may be changed to either “Non-Conforming” or “Rogue” by the USS and shared with the USS Network; 

in the event the non-conforming situation could affect manned operations, the USS may alert the FAA 

through FIMS. 

27 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Landing 

The RPIC returns his UAS to the landing area; he then alerts his USS of the landing and the completion 

of the operation. The USS sets the Operation Status to “Closed” and makes the updated operation 

intent available to the USS Network. 

3.2 USS Approval/Distribution of a Dynamic Restriction 

This use case examines an authorized entity sending a Dynamic Restriction Request to a USS. The 

approved restriction limits access of UAS to a block of airspace due to a low-altitude manned aircraft 

that is operating in the airspace to support emergency response personnel on the ground. It is 

assumed that the entity requesting the constraint has been approved, authorized, or has some level 

of authority to make the request. This use case assumes the USS handling the request has the ability 

to approve a request, create a Dynamic Restriction, distribute it to the USS Network, and notify the 

FAA. 

The scenario is set in a rural area, around and near an interstate highway; the airspace above this 

area is uncontrolled. A medical emergency occurs at an accident location on an interstate in this rural 

area. Emergency responders on the ground have requested a MedEvac for one of the victims of the 

accident. The MedEvac company knows that UAS operations occur in the area to support farms and 

other needs; due to the hazard sUAS can present a to manned aircraft operations and people and 

property on the ground, the company prefers the airspace around the landing site be sanitized of 

UAS operations while the helicopter is flying at low-altitudes. 

The MedEvac company subscribes to a USS that is authorized by the FAA to create and distribute 

Dynamic Restrictions. The company sends a Dynamic Restriction Request to the USS. Included in the 

request is the defined airspace volume requested for restriction, the duration of the restriction, and 

any aircraft that should be waived from the restriction (e.g., aircraft supporting the operation). 

The USS utilizes business rules that conform to the FAA regulatory framework regarding Dynamic 

Restrictions when evaluating the request. USS automated processes determine if the request is 

approved, or if it needs further review by USS personnel. In this case, the request conforms to 

applicable business rules, and it is automatically approved. 

The USS, using services, automated business rule execution, and pre-defined scenario templates, 

automatically generates a Dynamic Restriction that adheres to the constraints of the request, 

activates the restriction, and sends it to the USS Network. The USS also sends details on the 

restriction to the FAA via FIMS; the FAA may also automatically distribute this information through 

other channels, such as an FAA Public Portal or to applicable ATM stakeholders. All USSs are now 

aware of the restriction; automatic processes within each USS identify any potentially affected 

subscriber UAS operations (VLOS or BVLOS) by checking against known operation intent - those 

affected receive notification of the restriction from their respective USSs. Once notified, affected 

Operators/RPICs take necessary actions to vacate the airspace and, if necessary, update their 

28 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

operation intent to account for needed changes due to the restriction (e.g., intent, contingency 

responses that would violate the restricted airspace). The start time for the active state of the 

restriction accounts for time to allow UAS currently within the affected airspace to evacuate or land 

in a safe manner. The helicopter enters the airspace after the restriction becomes active with the 

knowledge that UTM participants are aware of the requirement to vacate the airspace. 

The helicopter eventually enters the restricted airspace and lands, retrieves the accident victim, and 

proceeds to a nearby hospital. The helicopter completed its mission earlier than expected, and the 

USS updates the restriction time to end earlier than the originally defined time. The update is 

dispersed as noted above, and is no longer active once the new end time is reached. Normal UTM 

operations in the area recommence. 

3.3 BVLOS UAS and Manned Aircraft Interactions in Class G (Uncontrolled) Airspace 

This use case is subdivided into scenarios; each of which examines a different way in which UTMparticipating UAS and manned aircraft can interact in low-altitude, uncontrolled, shared airspace. 

The scenarios assume that BVLOS UAS provide ID and position information. Manned aircraft act in 

accordance with existing rules of the road, procedures, and regulations. 

3.3.1 Scenario 1 – UAS On-Board Sense/Detect 

In this scenario, a UAS utilizes on-board equipment to scan the environment around it continuously 

for potential airborne objects. When an object is identified, the UAS on-board systems relay the 

information to the UAS Ground Control System (GCS), which communicates the potential conflict to 

the RPIC. Depending on the type of object, its distance, its trajectory, etc. the RPIC takes appropriate 

action to stay clear. Additionally, a UAS could be pre-programmed to adjust its heading or enact 

automatic contingency procedures upon detection of a manned aircraft, without the input of the 

RPIC from the GCS. 

3.3.2 Scenario 2 – Ground-Based Sense/Detect 

In this scenario, an entity employs ground-based equipment to either identify airborne objects via 

sensors (radar, for example), or by receiving signals transmitted by an aircraft (ADS-B, for example). 

While it is possible individual Operators could set up such equipment, the need for equipment over 

a large area to support BVLOS operations indicates this role would likely be fulfilled by a third party, 

such as a USS or a SDSP; in this scenario, we assume the latter. We also assume that USSs subscribe 

to information services provided by the SDSP. 

The SDSP ground system identifies an airborne object/aircraft; subscribing USSs have access to this 

information, and use it to identify any active or planned subscribers that may need to know about 

the object/aircraft. Messages/alerts are provided to affected Operators and/or RPICs, who take 

appropriate actions to maintain a safe operation. 

29 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.3.3 Scenario 3 – UAS and Manned On-Board Cooperative Equipment 

In this scenario, an Operator has installed equipment onto the UAS that can interact with on-board 

equipment of manned aircraft (e.g., ADS-B). The equipment may transmit/receive information, or 

may just receive information (receiver-only equipment is assumed more lightweight). 

While in flight, the UAS obtains information about equipped aircraft in the area; this information is 

relayed to the RPIC via their associated GCS. The RPIC takes appropriate actions, if required, to stay 

clear of the manned aircraft. If the UAS is capable of transmitting information, the manned aircraft’s 

equipment relays known information about the UAS to the pilot, who would also act in accordance 

with prescribed rules of the road/procedures to keep clear. 

3.3.4 Scenario 4 – Manned Aircraft Voluntary Passive UTM Participation 

In this scenario, manned aircraft Operators that fly at low-altitudes are aware that UTM operations 

occur in their area. They voluntarily subscribe to information services provided by a USS or an SDSP; 

both of which have access to the shared UTM operation intent data for the area in which they 

operate. The manned aircraft PIC uses the information about local UTM operations, either during 

pre-flight or in-flight, to gain situational awareness of UAS operating near him. The PIC is not assumed 

to provide any flight information to the USS. By using information about UTM operations, the PIC is 

considered to be passively participating in UTM. 

NOTE: VLOS UAS Operators could passively participate in UTM in the same manner as described 

above for manned aircraft PICs. The Operator would use information available to the USS Network to 

get situational awareness of other UAS operations in the area but would not provide his/her own 

intent information to the network. 

3.3.5 Scenario 5 – Manned Aircraft Voluntary Active UTM Participation 

In this scenario, manned aircraft Operators that fly at low-altitudes (e.g., crop-dusters) are aware that 

UTM operations occur in their area. Manned aircraft Operators that do not have on-board equipment 

that either broadcasts information or works cooperatively with UAS equipment may opt to actively 

participate in UTM by providing their own Operation Intent to the USS Network. Doing so allows 

UTM participants nearby to be aware of the manned aircraft’s intent, and to understand the 

equipment limitations of the aircraft regarding coordination with UAS. Creation of intent and sharing 

with the USS Network is assumed to be strategic in nature and is done during the planning phase, 

and mirrors that of BVLOS UAS Operators as detailed in the first scenario (see §3.1). 

3.4 VLOS Operations in Controlled Airspace (Class B/C/D/E): Voluntary UTM 

Participation 

This use case assumes that a Part 107 operation is conducted without a waiver and is done so within 

the boundaries of controlled airspace for a towered airport. The VLOS Operator is required to obtain 

30 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

authorization from ATC for the operation. The Operator can be a separate entity from the RPIC or 

can be one entity that fulfills both roles. 

Planning and Authorization 

The Operator elects to actively participate in UTM and develops the operation intent for a flight he 

wishes to conduct using tools provided by the USS to which he is subscribed. The Operator receives 

information from his USS on known UTM operations that need to be considered during planning of 

his own; this information is shared by other Operators subscribed to his USS, as well as by Operators 

subscribed to different USSs (via the USS Network), who will be conducting operations in the same 

area during similar times. 

During planning, the Operator indicates to the USS that he is conducting a Part 107 VLOS UAS 

operation. The USS determines that based on the type (Part 107) and location (controlled airspace) 

of the operation, ATC authorization is required. The USS asks the Operator if he would like to apply 

for automatic ATC authorization using LAANC services; the Operator responds in the affirmative. The 

USS is provided UAS Facility Map (UASFM) information for the applicable airspace by the FAA via 

LAANC systems and checks the submitted intent information (i.e. operation volume boundaries) 

against the ceilings and lateral boundaries for the UASFM. The USS determines that the Operator's 

volumes lie entirely within the bounds and under the ceilings for the UASFM, and therefore the 

operation qualifies to be automatically authorized by ATC. The USS sends an automatic authorization 

record to the Operator. A copy of the record is also forwarded to ATC via LAANC systems; ATC may 

utilize information from this record for traffic management purposes. 

With operation intent development complete and a Part 107 authorization obtained, the USS, 

knowing that the operation is VLOS, asks the Operator if he wishes to make the operation intent 

available to UTM, through the USS Network. As the Operator is actively participating in UTM, he 

affirms. The USS sets the operation status (part of the operation intent) to “Accepted” and makes 

the operation intent available to the USS Network. Other USSs are now aware of this new operation; 

they provide notice/alerts to other Operators and RPICs who may need to know of it. 

Flight 

The UAS is prepared for take-off, and the immediate airspace is evaluated for safe launch. With 

preparations complete, the RPIC notifies his USS he is about to take off; the USS sets the Operation 

Status to “Activated” and makes the update available to the USS Network (allowing other Operators 

to know of the newly active operation near them). 

The RPIC receives an acknowledgement of activation from the USS and takes off. The operation 

volume (single operation volumes only, given it is a VLOS flight) is considered active per its scheduled 

times (provided in the operation intent). 

31 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The RPIC may elect to share position data from his UAS with his USS, allowing the USS to provide 

conformance-monitoring services. The RPIC flies in accordance with his operation intent, maintaining 

separation from other UAS and manned aircraft. 

NOTE: Should the UAS be in a state incongruent with his shared operation intent, the operation status 

may be changed to either “Non-Conforming” or “Rogue” by the USS, and shared with the USS 

Network; in the event the non-conforming situation could affect manned operations, the USS may 

alert the FAA through FIMS. 

Landing 

The RPIC returns his UAS to the landing area; he then alerts his USS of the landing, and that he is done 

with the operation. The USS sets the Operation Status to “Closed” and makes the updated Operation 

Intent available to the USS Network. 

4 UTM Implementation 

The FAA, in coordination with NASA, industry, and the greater UTM community, is implementing a 

spiral development of UTM, starting with low complexity operations and building, in modules, higher 

complexity operational concepts and requirements. Each new development cycle is designed to 

mature the UTM architecture and services provided to ultimately support the full range of UAS 

operations - from remotely piloted aircraft to command-directed UAS and fully autonomous UAS. 

Stages of development are based upon three risk-oriented metrics: the number of people and 

amount of property on the ground, the number of manned aircraft in close proximity to the UAS 

operations, and the density of UAS operations. It is anticipated that requirements on airspace users 

to perform operations will increase commensurately with the complexity of the operations and the 

environment within which these operations are performed. UTM is expected to continue to mature 

and encompass increasingly complex operation in heavily populated environments and more heavily 

utilized and regulated airspace. It is expected UTM will place increasingly demanding requirements 

for performance and capability on all entities in these situations. 

The goal for initial UTM implementation is to minimize deployment and development time by utilizing 

current technologies and capabilities for operations (e.g., mobile communications, existing ground 

and air infrastructures) capable of meeting appropriate performance requirements for safety, 

security (cybersecurity, resilience (failure modes, redundancy), and efficiency while minimizing 

environmental impacts and respecting privacy and safety of citizens. 

This spiral approach to UTM development provides several advantages. First, by initially addressing 

lower complexity environments, where technological requirements and services should be the least 

stringent, implementation can be streamlined to these environments using current capabilities that 

meet performance requirements and do not require a full-scale architecture. Second, developing 

UTM according to an environmental risk and complexity scale allows for scalable, flexible, adaptable 

services that are ‘right sized’ for the environment rather than one size fits all. UTM design must be 

32 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

able to adapt to new technologies and automation, both ground-based and airborne, and increasingly 

allow for more advanced forms of interaction with the UTM environment, predominantly through 

interoperable systems capable of digital information and data exchange. Ultimately, UTM must 

encompass the range of UAS demand, business models, applications, and technologies, and support 

safe and efficient operations that coexist with manned traffic, and impose as little disruption to the 

existing ATM system as possible - while maintaining fair and equitable access to airspace. 

33 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References 

• Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular: 107-2, Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

(sUAS), 21 June 2016 

• Federal Aviation Administration, “Aeronautical Information Manual” (Basic, Chgs. 1&2), 10 

November 2016 

• Federal Aviation Administration, “Integration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems into the National 

Airspace System, Concept of Operations v2.0”, September, 2012 

• Federal Aviation Administration, “Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge” (FAA-H-8083-

25B), 2016 

• Federal Aviation Administration, “Remote Pilot – Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Study Guide” 

(FAA-G-8082-22), August, 2016 

• Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 

”UAS Traffic Management (UTM) Research Transition Team (RTT) Plan, Version 1.0”, January 2017 

• Kopardekar, Rios, Prevot, Johnson, Jung, & Robinson III “Unmanned Aircraft System Traffic 

Management (UTM) Concept of Operations”, AIAA Paper 2427123, June, 2016 

• U.S. Government Publishing Office, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14, Part 107, Small 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Web 29 December 2016 

34 | P a g e 
 

 

Acronym or Term Description 

ADS-B Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast 

AGL Above Ground Level 

API Application Program Interface 

ATC Air Traffic Control 

ATM Air Traffic Management 

BVLOS Beyond Visual Line of Sight 

C2 Command and Control 

CNS Communications, Navigation, and Surveillance 

ConOps Concept of Operations 

DAA Detect and Avoid 

EMS Emergency Management Service 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FIMS Flight Information Management System 

GCS Ground Control Station 

ID Identification 

LAANC Low Altitude Authorization and Notificati on Capability 

NAS National Airspace System 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

PIREP Pilot Report 

RPIC Remote Pilot in Command 

RTT Research Transition Team 

SAA Sense and Avoid 

SAA Special Activity Airspace 

SDSP Supplementary Data Ser vice Provider 

SUA Special Use Airspace 

sUAS Small Unmanned Aircraft System 

TCL Technical Capability Level 

UA Unmanned Aircraft 

UAS Unmanned Aircraft System 

UREP Unmanned Aircraft Report 

USS Unmanned Aircraft System Service Supplier 

UTM Unmanned Aircraft System Traffic Management 

VLOS Visual Line of Sight 

List of Acronyms 

35 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A - UTM Research Transition Team 

NASA and the FAA formed the UTM RTT to jointly identify, quantify, conduct, and effectively 

transfer UTM capabilities and technologies to the FAA (as the implementing agency) and to provide 

guidance and information to UTM stakeholders to facilitate an efficient implementation of UTM 

operations. The goals of the UTM RTT are to: (1) research and mature increasingly complex UTM 

operational scenarios and technologies; (2) demonstrate those capabilities on the NASA UTM 

research; and (3) deliver to the FAA technology transfer packages that enable NAS service 

expectations for low-altitude airspace operations by providing insight and capability requirements 

for critical services. 

The UTM RTT currently consists of four work groups (WGs) that focus on a range of technological 

areas to be addressed and further developed, including: (1) Concepts & Use Cases; (2) Data Exchange 

& Information Architecture; (3) Sense & Avoid (SAA); and (4) Communications & Navigation. Each of 

the WGs has FAA and NASA representation, as well as Industry participation where appropriate. 

Collectively, these WGs will mature the operational concept, and define the services, 

roles/responsibilities, information architecture, data exchange protocols, software functions, and 

performance requirements that will enable large-scale, low altitude UAS operations. 

To accomplish UTM RTT goals, the UTM RTT WGs are developing products in alignment with NASA’s 

spiral development and evaluation schedule of Technical Capability Levels (TCL), which are shown in 

Figure A-1. Spiral development of the UTM research platform is described in terms of four successive 

UTM TCLs, where each new TCL extends the supporting technological architecture, number of 

services provided, and types of UAS operations supported. UTM development starts with TCL 1 which 

represents low risk, low complexity UAS operating concepts and expands to TCL 4, which describes 

higher risk, more complex UAS operating concepts. As a set, the successive iterations will support 

development of the range of UAS operations for each operating environment - from remotely piloted 

aircraft to command-directed UAS and fully autonomous UAS. The TCLs are staged based upon four 

risk-oriented metrics: the number of people and amount of property on the ground, the number of 

manned aircraft in close proximity to the UAS operations, and the density of the UAS operations. 

Each capability is targeted to specific types of applications, geographical areas, and use cases that 

represent certain risk levels. 

36 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure A-1. NASA UTM Technical Capability Levels 

The UTM RTT efforts will ultimately result in NASA’s technology transfer of 

• UTM concepts and requirements for data exchange and architecture, 

communication/navigation and detect/SAA, and other detailed technical documentation 

regarding operator-to-operator interaction and operator-to-Air Navigation Service Provider 

(ANSP) interactions - to the FAA and Industry, and 

• A Flight Information Management System (FIMS) prototype (software prototype, application 

protocol interface description, algorithms, functional requirements) - to the FAA. 

37 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B - NAS Airspace Classification Descriptions4 

Figure B-1. NAS Airspace Classifications 

Controlled Airspace 

Controlled airspace is a generic term that covers the different classifications of airspace and defined 

dimensions within which air traffic control (ATC) service is provided in accordance with the airspace 

classification. Controlled airspace consists of Classes A, B, C, D, and E. 

Class A Airspace5 

Class A airspace is generally the airspace from 18,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) up to and including 

flight level (FL) 600, including the airspace overlying the waters within 12 nautical miles (NM) of the 

coast of the 48 contiguous states and Alaska. Unless otherwise authorized, all operation in Class A 

airspace is conducted under instrument flight rules (IFR). 

Class B Airspace 

Class B airspace is generally airspace from the surface to 10,000 feet MSL surrounding the nation’s 

busiest airports in terms of airport operations or passenger enplanements. The configuration of each 

Class B airspace area is individually tailored, consists of a surface area and two or more layers (some 

Class B airspace areas resemble upside-down wedding cakes), and is designed to contain all published 

instrument procedures once an aircraft enters the airspace. An ATC clearance is required for all 

aircraft to operate in the area, and all aircraft that are so cleared receive separation services within 

the airspace. 

4 Federal Aviation Administration, Pilot Handbook, Chapter 15 – Airspace, Pg. 15-2 and 15-3 

5 Class A airspace is not within the scope of sUAS UTM operations; however, its description is included for 

completeness. 

38 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Class C Airspace 

Class C airspace is generally airspace from the surface to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation 

(charted in MSL) surrounding those airports that have an operational control tower, are serviced by 

a radar approach control, and have a certain number of IFR operations or passenger enplanements. 

Although the configuration of each Class C area is individually tailored, the airspace usually consists 

of a surface area with a five NM radius, an outer circle with a ten NM radius that extends from 1,200 

feet to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation, and an outer area. Each aircraft must establish twoway radio communications with the ATC facility providing air traffic services prior to entering the 

airspace and thereafter maintain those communications while within the airspace. 

Class D Airspace 

Class D airspace is generally airspace from the surface to 2,500 feet above the airport elevation 

(charted in MSL) surrounding those airports that have an operational control tower. The 

configuration of each Class D airspace area is individually tailored and when instrument procedures 

are published, the airspace is normally designed to contain the procedures. Arrival extensions for 

instrument approach procedures (IAPs) may be Class D or Class E airspace. Unless otherwise 

authorized, each aircraft must establish two-way radio communications with the ATC facility 

providing air traffic services prior to entering the airspace and thereafter maintain those 

communications while in the airspace. 

Class E Airspace 

If the airspace is not Class A, B, C, or D, and is controlled airspace, then it is Class E airspace. Class E 

airspace extends upward from either the surface or a designated altitude to the overlying or adjacent 

controlled airspace. When designated as a surface area, the airspace is configured to contain all 

instrument procedures. Also in this class are federal airways, airspace beginning at either 700 or 

1,200 feet above ground level (AGL) used to transition to and from the terminal or en route 

environment, and en route domestic and offshore airspace areas designated below 18,000 feet MSL. 

Unless designated at a lower altitude, Class E airspace begins at 14,500 MSL over the United States, 

including that airspace overlying the waters within 12 NM of the coast of the 48 contiguous states 

and Alaska, up to but not including 18,000 feet MSL, and the airspace above FL 600. 

Uncontrolled Airspace 

Class G Airspace 

Uncontrolled airspace or Class G airspace is the portion of the airspace that has not been designated 

as Class A, B, C, D, or E. It is therefore designated uncontrolled airspace. Class G airspace extends 

from the surface to the base of the overlying Class E airspace. Although ATC has no authority or 

responsibility to control air traffic, Operators should remember there are visual flight rules (VFR) 

minimums which apply to Class G airspace. A remote pilot will not need ATC authorization to operate 

in Class G airspace. 

39 | P a g e 
 

Appendix C - UTM Services 

40 | P a g e 

Messaging Service A service which provides on demand, periodic, or event driven information on UAS operations 

(e.g. position reports, intent information, and status information) occurring within the 

subscribed airspace volum e and time. Additional filtering may be performed as part of the 

service. 

Discovery Service A service which allows for service suppliers and UAS O perators to be aware of other service 

suppliers providing specific services of varying levels of capability in a specific geographical 

region. 

Registration Service A service which provides the ability for vehicle owners to register data related to their UAS 

and a query function to allow appropriate stakeholder to request registration data. 

Airspace Authorization 

Service 

A service which provides airspace authorization from the Airspace Authority/Air Naviga tion 

Service Provider to a UAS O perator. 

Restriction Management 

Service 

A service which manages and pushes operational restrictions from the Airspace 

Authority/ANSP to effected UAS operations. 

Communication Services 

Command and Control 

Service 

A se

(RF) 

rvice w

Comma

hich p

nd an

rovid

d Co

es infra

ntrol (C

struct

2) cap

ure a

abiliti

nd quali

es to U 

ty of ser 

AS Operators. 

vice assurance for radio frequency 

Separation Services 

Strategic De-Confliction 

Service 

Conformance Monitoring 

Service 

Conflict Advisory and Alert 

Service 

Dynamic Reroute Service 

A service which arranges, negotiates, and prioritizes intended operational 

volumes/trajectories of UAS operations with the intention of minimizing the likelihood of 

planned airborne conflicts between operations. 

A service which provides real -time alerting of non -conformance to intended opera tional 

volume/trajectory to an O perator or another airspace user. 

A service which provides real -time monitoring and alerting through suggestive or directive 

information of UA proximity for other airspace users. 

A real-time service which provides modifications to intended operational volumes/trajectories 

to minimize the likelihood of airb orne conflicts and maximize the likelihood of conforming to 

airspace restrictions and maintaining mission objectives. This service arranges, negotiates, and 

prioritizes inflight operational volumes/trajectories of UAS operations while the UAS is aloft. 

Weather Services A service which provides forecast and/or real -time weather information to support 

operational decisions of individual O perators and/or services. 

Flight Planning Service A service which, prior to flight, arranges and optimizes intended opera tional 

volumes/trajectories for safety, dynamic airspace flight rules, airspace restrictions, and 

mission needs. 

Mapping Services A service which provides terrain and/or obstacle data appropriate and necessary to meet the 

safety and mission needs of indi vidual UAS operation or support the needs of separation or 

flight planning service. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix D - UAS Service Supplier6 

The USS is an integral part of the UTM ecosystem. The USS serves a support role to Operators 

participating in UTM. USSs are expected to develop and implement a wide variety of capabilities and 

services to assist the Operator in the safe conduct of their operations. USSs provide infrastructure 

and services that may be burdensome for individual UTM participants to develop, access, or maintain. 

By ensuring the sharing of information and situational awareness across the UTM community, USSs 

play a critical role in maintaining shared situational awareness across participants. 

Communications Bridge: USSs act as a real-time or near–real time communications bridge between 

UAS Operators, the FAA (via FIMS), SDSPs, public entities, and other stakeholders to share 

information required to manage nominal and off-nominal operations. USSs assist Operators in 

meeting the requirements set forth for each operation either by acting as a coordination mechanism 

to relay safety critical information to the Operator and other entities (e.g., distribution of off nominal 

flight operations data to FAA and other affected airspace users) or provide services that enable 

efficient, safe operations. 

The USS coordinates and distributes to appropriate entities (1) Operator intent, (2) airspace 

constraint data, (3) weather data, (4) vehicle tracking and conformance data, (5) surveillance data, 

and 6) other data critical to safety of flight. This data supports numerous services, including strategic 

de-confliction, notifications of priority services (temporary flight restrictions), inflight deconfliction/sense and avoid functions, hazard avoidance, and terrain and obstacle clearance, and 

other value-added services. 

To successfully complete these exchanges, USSs must have discovery to FIMS, other USSs, Operators, 

SDSPs, and public entities (e.g., law enforcement, emergency services, Department of Defense) either 

directly or via a central inter-USS communication and coordination capability (e.g., the USS Network). 

Adherence to a common requirement for information exchange within a USS Network (USS-USS) 

and/or with other specified entities is necessary, along with standard protocols for publishing flight 

information and other data, ensures data flow and situational awareness across all participants. 

Demand/Capacity Balancing: USSs also support collaborative decision-making and conflict 

avoidance/de-confliction, which promote safety, equitable airspace access, and efficient operations. 

When users are competing for airspace, USS Operator negotiation capabilities and flight planning 

tools (e.g., route planning functions, airspace configuration options) are available to support 

collaborative decision making and/or offer alternate flight intent options that enable equitable 

airspace configuration solutions designed to optimize airspace equity and access and resolve 

demand/capacity imbalances. 

6 Rios, J. “UAS Service Supplier”, NASA White Paper, December 2017. 

41 | P a g e 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To meet these objectives, USSs must develop/procure tools and capabilities that meet these 

requirements. Exchanges between identified parties require that USSs have discovery to FIMS, other 

USSs, Operators, SDSPs, and public entities (e.g., law enforcement, emergency services, Department 

of Defense) either directly or via a central inter-USS communication and coordination capability (e.g., 

the USS Network). Adherence to an API defined to exchange information within a USS Network (USSUSS) or with other specified entities is also required. 

Data Archiving: As the regulator, the FAA monitors Operator compliance with established rules and 

regulations set forth for the operation; investigates aviation accidents and incidents; collects and 

analyzes operations data to evaluate whether they are meeting ensure agency requirements and 

goals are being met; and sets the risk for safety and authorizes Operators to operate provided they 

maintain the established level of safety. USSs will assist the FAA with meeting these responsibilities 

by archiving requested operations data sets in historical databases for FAA analytics, regulatory, and 

Operator accountability purposes. USSs must be capable of providing this data upon FAA request. 

42 | P a g e 
Appendix E – Use Case Inventory: Version 1.0 

Table E-1 lists the complete set of use cases developed to date by the UTM RTT CWG to support 

NASA’s TCL demonstrations and to serve as a basis for the concept narrative in this ConOps V1.0. The 

CWG will continue to develop use cases that represent increasingly complex UTM environments. 

They will be documented in subsequent ConOps versions. 

Table E-1. V1.0 Use Case Inventory 

Use Title Summary Case 

TCL1-1 Two VLOS Operations with 

Voluntary Use of UTM for 

Coordination 

• Basic activities involved in sharing intent. 

• Process of in-flight changes to operation intent. 

TCL2-1 One BVLOS Operation, One 

VLOS Operation with Voluntary 

UTM Participation for 

Coordination 

• Introduction of a BVLOS operation. 

• Manned aircraft (low density) at low altitudes near UTM 

operations. 

TCL2-2 Two BVLOS Operations near an 

Airport in Uncontrolled 

Airspace 

• USS de-confliction of operation volumes during planning 

stage. 

• Multiple USSs coordinating across the USS Network 

TCL2-3 Priority Operation – Emergency 

Medical Aircraft in Uncontrolled 

Airspace 

• Introduces the concept of a Dynamic Restriction. 

• Effects of a priority manned operation on UTM participants 

in uncontrolled airspace. 

TCL2-4 BVLOS Operation Conformance 

Violation from Uncontrolled 

Airspace into Class D Airspace 

• Effects within UTM of a UTM-participating UAS becoming 

non-conforming with its shared operation intent. 

• Direct FAA interaction with UTM once a UAS approaches 

and crosses into controlled airspace (when not 

authorized previously). 

TCL3-1 One-Way BVLOS Flight, 

Separate Landing/Take-Off 

Locations 

• Introduction of Operation Plan development for long 

distance point-to-point operation in an area of increased 

airspace demand 

• De-confliction of Operation Volumes using flight planning 

tools 

• Segmentation of operation volumes to optimize airspace 

usage 

TCL3-2 Negotiation versus 

Prioritization between 

Operators Due to Dynamic 

Restriction 

• Segmented flight operation on long distance, point- topoint route 

• UAS contingency response to dynamic restriction on a 

segmented route 

• Two alternative outcomes of Operator negotiation due to 

in-flight airspace conflict. 

TCL3-3 UAS Interaction with Manned 

Aircraft in Low-Altitude 

Uncontrolled Airspace 

• Heterogeneous operations 

• Concept level capability requirements for heterogeneous 

operations 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

43 | P a g e 
Use Title Summary Case 

• Procedural requirements for manned/unmanned 

interactions 

TCL3-4 BVLOS Operation Lost-Link 

Event 

• UAS on-board contingency procedures during a lost-link 

event 

• Communication of Off-Nominal Event to other UTM 

Participants via the USS Network 

• Communication of UAS with Unknown Intent to the FAA 

and other Airspace Users 

TCL3-5 High Density UTM Operations in 

Uncontrolled Airspace 

• Many UAS operations managed through the course of a 

day by multiple servicing USSs. 

• Closer examination of small operation volumes used in 

dense UTM environment. 

• Strategic vs Tactical Deconfliction/Separation between UAS 

operations. 

TCL3-6 Last-Mile Rural Deliveries in 

Uncontrolled Airspace under 

the Mode C Veil 

• Simultaneous package deliveries (successful and 

unsuccessful deliveries) 

• RPIC to UAS ratio of 1:2 

• Mode C Veil Uncontrolled Airspace UTM Operations 

TCL3-7 UTM Priority Considerations in 

Uncontrolled Airspace 

• Emergency UAS scenarios; control available and marginal 

control scenarios 

• Emergency declaration to USS Network and in-air to nearby 

UAS 

• Priority consideration given to UAS in distress 

TCL3-8 UAS Operator Loss of 

Performance Capabilities in 

Uncontrolled Airspace 

• Operator unable to meet Performance Authorization 

requirements 

• USS to USS operation hand-off due to loss of USS support 

for Operator. 

• UAS landing due to inability to continue operating per 

Performance Authorization 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

44 | P a g e