Unmanned Aerial Systems: FAA Continues Progress toward Integration into the National Airspace
Published: 2015-07-16T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: UASs are aircraft that do not carry a pilot aboard, but instead operate on pre-programmed routes or are manually controlled by following commands from pilot-operated ground control stations. Unauthorized UAS operations have, in some instances, compromised safety. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 directed FAA to take actions to safely integrate UASs into the national airspace. In response, FAA developed a phased approach to facilitate integration and established test sites among other things.
GAO was asked to review FAA's progress in integrating UASs. This report addresses (1) the status of FAA's progress toward safe integration of UASs into the national airspace, (2) research and development support from FAA's test sites and other resources, and (3) how other countries have progressed toward UAS integration into their airspace for commercial purposes. GAO reviewed and analyzed FAA's integration- planning documents; interviewed officials from FAA and UAS industry stakeholders; and met with the civil aviation authorities from Australia, Canada, France, and the United Kingdom. These countries were selected based on several factors including whether they have regulatory requirements for commercial UASs, operations beyond the view of the pilot, and whether non-military UAS are allowed to operate in the airspace. In comments on this report, the Department of Transportation noted that GAO did not address environmental considerations of UAS integration; such considerations were outside the scope of this report.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has progressed toward its goal of seamlessly integrating unmanned aerial system (UAS) flights into the national airspace. FAA has issued its UAS Comprehensive Plan and UAS Integration Roadmap , which provide broad plans for integration. However, according to FAA, it is working with MITRE to develop a foundation for an implementation plan; FAA then expects to enact a plan by December 2015. While FAA still approves all UAS operations on a case-by-case basis, in recent years it has increased approvals for UAS operations. Specifically, the total number of approvals for UAS operations has increased each year since 2010, and over the past year has included approvals for commercial UAS operations for the first time. In addition, FAA has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposes regulations for small UASs (less than 55 pounds).
The FAA's six designated test sites have become operational but have had to address various challenges during the process. The designated test sites became operational in 2014, and as of March 2015, over 195 test flights had taken place. These flights provide operations and safety data to FAA in support of UAS integration. In addition, FAA has provided all test sites with a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization allowing small UAS operations below 200 feet anywhere in the United States. However, during the first year of operations, the test sites faced some challenges. Specifically, the test sites sought additional guidance regarding the type of research they should conduct. According to FAA, it cannot direct the test sites, which receive no federal funding, to conduct specific research. However, FAA did provide a list of potential research areas to the test sites to provide some guidance on areas for research. FAA has conducted other UAS research through agreements with MITRE and some universities, and in May 2015 named the location of the UAS Center of Excellence—a partnership among academia, industry, and government conducting additional UAS research. Unlike FAA's agreements with the test sites, many of these arrangements have language specifically addressing the sharing of research and data.
Around the world, countries have been allowing UAS operations in their airspace for purposes such as agricultural applications and aerial surveying. Unlike in the United States, countries GAO examined—Australia, Canada, France, and the United Kingdom—have well-established UAS regulations. Also, Canada and France currently allow more commercial operations than the United States. While the United States has not finalized UAS regulations, the provisions of FAA's proposed rules are similar to those in the countries GAO examined. However, FAA may not issue a final rule for UASs until late 2016 or early 2017, and rules in some of these countries continue to evolve. Meanwhile, unlike under FAA's proposed rule, Canada has created exemptions for commercial use of small UASs in two categories that allow operations without a government-issued certification, and France and Australia are approving limited beyond line-of-sight operations. Similar to the United States, other countries are facing technology shortfalls, such as the ability to detect and avoid other aircraft and obstacles, as well as unresolved issues involving limited spectrum that limit the progress toward full integration of UASs into the airspace in these countries.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Since the early 1990s, unmanned aerial systems (UAS) have operated on  a limited basis in the national airspace system, primarily supporting public  uses, such as military and border-security operations. The list of  potential uses is now rapidly expanding to include a broad range of UAS  operations, including assisting in search and rescue operations,  inspecting pipelines, photographing real estate, surveying land and crops,  disaster assistance, gathering news, and filming movies. According to a  2013 report by a UAS industry group, the economic benefit of fully  integrating UASs into the national airspace system will total more than  $13.6 billion in the first 3 years of integration and grow to more than $82.1  billion from 2015 through 2025.
The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) goal is to seamlessly  integrate all UAS operations into the national airspace. While FAA is  developing regulations to allow routine UAS commercial operations, it  currently only allows them in the national airspace after a case-by-case  safety review and approval. At the same time, the safety of the national  airspace is threatened on a nearly daily basis by UASs’ operating without  approval. For example, one UAS nearly collided with a New York Police  Department helicopter over New York City, another came dangerously  close to a US Airways regional jet over the Florida panhandle, and  numerous UASs have been spotted flying over professional and college  football stadiums full of people. The FAA has stated the number of  reported incidents has increased recently, with 97 incidents reported from  February through March 2015, compared to just 3 incidents reported  during the same period in 2014. FAA believes the increase is due to more  awareness about UASs and the need to report incidents, but the extent  these factors contribute to the increase is not clear.
As UAS operations in the national airspace continue to increase,  members of Congress have raised questions about the safe and efficient  integration of UASs into the national airspace system and asked us to  examine the progress of UAS integration. This report examines (1) the  status of FAA’s progress toward safe integration of UASs into the national  airspace, (2) research and development support from FAA’s test sites and  other resources, and (3) how other countries have progressed toward  UAS integration into their airspace for commercial purposes.
To address all the objectives, we reviewed FAA reports and prior GAO  work related to integrating UASs in the national airspace system,  reviewing such work as FAA’s framework for UAS integration and our  prior work on UAS research and development, efforts by FAA to  accommodate ongoing research and commercial UAS use, and UASs’  technology challenges. We also reviewed provisions of the FAA  Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the 2012 Act), and the Notice of  Proposed Rulemaking for small UAS operations. To determine FAA’s  progress toward safe integration of UASs into the national airspace, we  reviewed and analyzed documents provided by various stakeholders and  conducted semi-structured interviews with these stakeholders, including  government—FAA, Department of Defense (DOD), National Aeronautics  and Space Administration (NASA), and the Department of Homeland  Security—academics researching UAS technology, industry trade  associations, and others from the UAS industry including a manufacturer  and a commercial operator. We selected the private-sector stakeholders,  such as RTCA and ASTM International, based on their involvement within  UAS standards groups. To identify research and development support  from FAA’s test sites and other resources, we reviewed and analyzed  documents provided by officials at each of FAA’s six test sites and  conducted semi-structured interviews with officials from each of the six,  including the applications submitted by the selected test sites and  quarterly reports provided to FAA. We also interviewed FAA officials  managing the test site program and those managing other research and  development efforts related to UASs. To identify how other countries have  progressed toward UAS integration into their airspace for commercial  purposes, we obtained the UAS regulations of authorities in France, the  United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada and interviewed the civil aviation  authorities in them. We selected these countries based on several factors  including whether they have regulatory requirements for commercial  UASs, operations beyond the view of the pilot, and whether the country  allows non-military UAS to operate in the airspace. We also reviewed key  documents and interviewed international aviation entities including the  International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).scope and methodology can be found in appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from January 2014 to July 2015 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: UASs can be categorized by both size and mission, as shown in figure 1.
For the purposes of this report, in terms of size, we use the broad  categories of “small” and “large” UASs. Small UASs typically weigh  less than 55 pounds and can be used for a variety of commercial  purposes including photography and package delivery. According to  an industry association, small UASs are expected to comprise the  majority of UASs that will operate in the national airspace system.  Large UASs, depending on their size and purpose, generally fly at  higher altitudes and are used for the purposes of surveillance, data  gathering, and communications relay.
UAS operations are also categorized by how they are being used— their mission—within line of sight of the operator or beyond the line of  sight of the operator. For UAS operations within the operator’s line of  sight—for example a real estate agent taking photographs of a  house—the operator relies only on their vision to avoid colliding with  other objects. On the other hand, UAS operations occurring beyond  the line of sight of the operator—for example conducting rail or  pipeline inspections—requires that FAA segregate the airspace or that  the UAS needs instruments to sense other aircraft and obstacles and  avoid those obstacles, as well as, other technologies that will keep the  aircraft safely operating during its mission.
The FAA plays two major roles in integrating UASs into the national  airspace—a regulator and a service provider. As the regulator, the FAA  seeks to ensure the safety of persons and property in the air and on the  ground in part by requiring that UAS operators and manufactures follow  specific operation and manufacturing standards. As the service provider,  the FAA is responsible for providing safe and efficient air-traffic control  services in the national airspace system and the other portions of global  airspace. In addition to FAA, many federal and private sector entities  have roles in the effort to integrate UAS into the national airspace system.  See table 1 for UAS stakeholders and their responsibilities.
FAA also partners with a range of industry, federal research entities,  universities, and international organizations for research and  development on UAS issues.
Federally Funded Research and Development Centers and  Cooperative Research and Development Agreements typically require  an agency, organization, or company to perform specific research and  provide FAA with data in exchange for funding. FAA uses these types  of agreements to support research and development in critical  technologies needed for UAS integration including “detect and avoid”  and “command and control” as well as for the dedicated radio- frequency spectrum and “human factors.”
Some other partnerships use Other Transaction Agreements to  establish the research and development relationship.these take many forms and are subject to requirements that may differ  from the federal laws and regulations that apply to contracts, grants,  or cooperative agreements, and therefore might not include a  requirement to share research results with FAA.
Currently, most UAS operations must remain within visual line of sight of  the UAS operator. FAA’s long-term goal is to pursue research and  development that will advance technology in these critical areas, such as  detect and avoid, and supporting beyond-visual-line-of-sight operations.  These types of operations, according to an industry group, have the most  potential for commercial purposes.
In response to the 2012 Act, FAA has been planning for UAS integration  into the national airspace and has been taking steps toward increasing  UAS operations. The 2012 Act outlined 17 date specific requirements  and set deadlines for FAA to achieve safe UAS integration by September  2015. These requirements included developing two planning documents -  UAS Comprehensive Plan and the UAS Roadmap. FAA has completed  these two requirements in addition to naming six test sites where  research and development will occur. However, we found in December  2014 that several other requirements, some key ones, including the  publication of a final rule on small UAS operations, had not been  completed (see app. II).
As part of its role in supporting UAS integration, FAA authorizes all UAS  operations (access to the airspace as well as the aircraft itself) in the  national airspace system—military; public (academic institutions and,  federal, state, and local governments including law enforcement  organizations); and civil (non-government including commercial).  Depending on the type of user, public or civil, the process for accessing  the airspace may be different (see table 2).
Currently, since a final rulemaking is not yet completed, FAA only  approves UASs access to the national airspace on a case-by-case basis.  FAA provides this approval through three different means:
Public or Civil Certificates of Waiver or Authorization (COA): A COA is  an authorization, generally for up to 2 years, issued by the FAA to an  operator for a specific UAS activity. Public entities, including FAA- designated test sites (described in more detail later), and civil entities  may apply for a COA to obtain authorized access to the airspace. FAA  has a goal to review and approve all COAs within 60 days of being  received.
Section 333 exemptions: Since September 2014, commercial entities  have applied to FAA for exemptions under section 333 of the 2012  Act, Special Rules for Certain Unmanned Aircraft Systems. This  exemption requires the Secretary of Transportation to determine if  certain UASs may operate safely in the national airspace system prior  to the completion of UAS rulemakings.
Special Airworthiness Certificates in the Experimental Category and  the Restricted Category (Experimental Certificate): Civil entities,  including commercial interests, may apply for experimental  certificates, which may be used for research and development,  commercial operations, training, or demonstrations by manufacturers.
While FAA has proceeded in planning for integration, foreign countries  are also experiencing an increase in UAS use and planning for  integration, and some have begun to allow commercial entities to fly  UASs under limited circumstances. Some countries have already  established regulations for flying UASs or formal processes for  exemptions, while others have taken steps to completely ban all UAS  operations. While some countries have worked independently to integrate  UAS operations, some international groups, such as the ICAO, are  working to harmonize UAS regulations and standards across borders.
section_title: FAA Has Made Progress in the First Phase of UAS Integration
subsections: section_title: Developing Planning Documents
paragraphs: FAA has taken a number of steps to move toward further safe integration  of UAS in the national airspace in response to key requirements of the  2012 Act. FAA has developed the following planning documents:  In November 2013, FAA issued the UAS Comprehensive Plan  identifying six high-level strategic goals for integrating UAS into the  national airspace, including routine public operation and routine civil  operations. The Comprehensive Plan provides a phased-in  approach for achieving these goals, which will initially focus on public  UAS operations, but ultimately will provide a framework for civil UAS  operations. According to the plan, each partner agency will work to  achieve these national goals and may develop agency-specific plans  that are aligned to the national goals and objectives. The DOD’s  Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap and FAA’s UAS Integration  Roadmap, described below, are examples of such plans.
In November 2013, FAA also issued the UAS Integration Roadmap,  which identified a broad three phase approach to UAS integration— accommodation, integration, and evolution—with associated priorities  for each phase. These priorities provide insight into FAA’s near-,  mid-, and far-term goals for UAS integration, as shown in figure 2.  FAA intends to use this approach to facilitate further incremental steps  toward its goal of seamlessly integrating UAS flight into the national  airspace. Under this approach, FAA’s initial focus during the  accommodation phase will be on safely allowing for the expanded  operation of UASs by selectively accommodating some use and  demonstrating progress by increasing operations throughout the  phase. In the integration phase, FAA plans to develop new  operational rules, standards, and guidance, shifting its emphasis  toward moving beyond case-by-case approval for UAS use, once  technology can support safe operations. Finally, in the evolution  phase, FAA plans to focus on revising its regulations, policy, and  standards based on the changing needs of the airspace. This phased  approach has been supported by stakeholders across both academia  and industry. The 2012 Act requires the Roadmap to be updated  annually, but as of May 2015 FAA has only issued one version of the  Roadmap. FAA intends to update the Roadmap by September 2015  and send it to the Office of Management and Budget for additional  review before it is publicly released.
While these planning documents provide a broad framework for  integration, FAA is still in process of developing an implementation plan  for integrating UASs. FAA’s Comprehensive Plan and Roadmap provide  broad plans for integration, but are not detailed implementation plans that  predict with any certainty when full integration will occur and what  resources will be needed. The Department of Transportation’s Inspector  General issued a report in June 2014 that recommended FAA develop an  implementation plan.
Two reports—one from the UAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee and a  second internal FAA report—have discussed the importance of an  implementation plan and information to include as part of such a plan.  The UAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee has emphasized that FAA  needs an implementation plan that would identify the means, necessary  resources, and schedule to safely and expeditiously integrate civil UAS  into the national airspace. The proposed implementation plan contains  several hundred tasks and other activities needed to complete the UAS  integration process, including:  identifying gaps in current UAS technologies, regulations, standards,  policies, or procedures; developing new technologies, regulations, standards, policies, and  procedures that would support safe UAS operations; and  identifying necessary activities to advance routine UAS operations in  the national airspace, including the development of guidance  materials, training, and procedures for certification of aircraft.
An internal FAA report from August 2014 prepared by MITRE Corporation  (MITRE) was intended to assist FAA’s development of the key  components of an implementation plan.among other actions FAA’s implementation plan should:  identify the tasks necessary, responsibilities, resources, and expected  time frames for incremental expansion of UAS operations;  clarify the priorities for aligning internal resources in support of near- term and long-term integration efforts and provide consistent  communication with external stakeholders on the expected progress,  cost, and extent of UAS integration during these time periods; align resources supporting UAS integration including allocation of FAA  personnel and funds used for contracts and to acquire systems and  services in support of integration; and establish the operational, performance, and safety data needed and  also the associated infrastructure for collecting, storing, disseminating,  and analyzing data, actions that could be a component of an  implementation plan.
According to FAA, it continues to work with MITRE developing the  foundation for a detailed implementation plan. FAA expects MITRE to  complete this by September 2015 and FAA to enact the plan by  December 2015. According to FAA, the agency used the Aviation  Rulemaking Committee’s report when writing the Roadmap and is  applying the report prepared by MITRE to help develop the detailed  implementation plan.
section_title: Issuing a Final Rule for Small UAS Operations
paragraphs: In February 2015, FAA made progress toward the 2012 Act’s requirement  to issue a final rule for the operations of small UASs—those weighing less  than 55 pounds—by issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that could, once finalized, allow greater access to the national airspace.To mitigate risk, the proposed rule would limit small UASs to daylight-only  operations, confined areas of operation, and visual-line-of-sight  operations. This proposed rule also addressed other issues pertinent to  UAS operations including aircraft registration, operations in the national  airspace, and operator certification. See table 3 for a summary of the  rule’s major provisions. FAA’s release of this proposed rule for small UAS  operations started the process of addressing remaining requirements of  the 2012 Act.
FAA’s proposed rule also sought comments on a potential micro-UAS  classification (4.4 pounds or less) that would apply to very small UAS  being used for authorized purposes. This classification would be based  on the UAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee’s recommendations, as well  as approaches adopted in other countries, that a separate set of  regulations for micro-UASs be created. FAA is considering provisions for  micro-UASs classification such as limiting operation airspeed to 30 knots,  limiting flight to within visual line of sight, and having aircraft made out of  materials that break on impact.
The proposed rule would not apply to model aircraft—unmanned aircraft  that are flown for hobby or recreational purposes, capable of sustained  flight in the atmosphere, and flown within visual line of site of the person  who is operating the aircraft—as specified in the 2012 Act. Whether or  not a UAS is considered a model aircraft or a small UAS depends upon  its operation. For example, if the operator is flying an unmanned aircraft  for recreational purposes the unmanned aircraft is considered a model  aircraft. If the exact same type of unmanned aircraft is being operated for  an authorized purpose such as a search and rescue mission, it is  considered a small UAS. The 2012 Act specifically prohibits FAA from  promulgating rules regarding model aircraft that meet specific criteria,  including model aircraft flown strictly for hobby or recreational use and  operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any  manned aircraft. However, the proposed rule would incorporate the  2012 Act provisions that preserve FAA’s authority to pursue enforcement  against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the  national airspace system.
According to FAA, it may take 16 months to process the comments it  receives on the NPRM and develop and issue the final rule for small UAS  operations. If FAA takes 16 months, the final rule would be issued in late  2016 or early 2017, about two years beyond the requirement in the 2012  Act. However, during the course of our work, FAA told us that the time  needed to respond to a large number of comments could further extend  the time to issue a final rule. When the comment period closed on April  24, 2015 FAA had received over 4,500 comments. FAA officials told us  that it has taken a number of steps to develop a framework to efficiently  process the comments it expects to receive. Specifically, they said that  FAA has a team of employees assigned to lead the effort with contractor  support to track and categorize the comments as soon as they are  received.
section_title: Creating Test Sites
paragraphs: FAA has also met the requirement from the 2012 Act to create UAS test  sites for research and development. Specifically, in December 2013 FAA  selected six UAS test site locations, which all became operational  between April 2014 and August 2014. According to FAA, these sites were  chosen based on a number of factors including geography, climate,  airspace use, and a proposed research portfolio that was part of the  application. Under FAA policy, all UAS operations at a test site must be  authorized by FAA through either the use of a COA or an experimental  certificate. In addition, FAA does not provide funding to support the test  sites. Thus, these sites rely upon revenue generated from entities, such  as those in the UAS industry that are using the sites for UAS flights. The  2012 Act authorized the test sites to operate until February 14, 2017. FAA  stated it is too early to assess the test sites’ results and effectiveness and  thus whether the test sites should be extended. According to FAA  officials, FAA does not object to extending the test sites but may need  additional resources if that happens.
section_title: Accommodating Limited UAS Operations
paragraphs: Although it still relies on case-by-case approvals, FAA has increased UAS  operations during the accommodation phase of UAS integration. As we  have previously noted, UAS operators can only gain access to the  national airspace by obtaining a COA, an experimental certificate, or a  section 333 exemption. From 2010 to 2014, the total number of COAs  approved for public operations has increased each year, with FAA issuing  403 COAs thus far this year, as shown in table 4. Similarly, from 2011 to  2014, the total number of experimental certificates has increased each  year, with FAA issuing 6 thus far this year.
In September 2014, FAA granted the first section 333 exemptions; at that  time 6 total exemptions were granted for commercial UAS operations to  movie and TV production companies. As of June 9, 2015, FAA had  granted 548 section 333 exemptions to companies for a variety of  additional commercial operations supporting the real estate, utility, and  agriculture industries, among others. See figure 3 for examples of  commercial uses, including some approved under section 333  exemptions.
FAA has taken steps to make access easier for those operating UASs  under a section 333 exemption. On March 23, 2015, FAA established an  interim policy to speed up authorizations for certain commercial  unmanned aircraft operators that request Section 333 exemptions.  According to FAA, the new policy helps bridge the gap between the past  “case-by-case” approval process, which evaluated every commercial UAS  operation individually, and future operations after they publish a final  version of the proposed small UAS rule. Under the new policy, the FAA  will grant a COA for flights at or below 200 feet to any commercial UAS  operator with a Section 333 exemption for aircraft that weigh less than 55  pounds, operate during the daytime, operate within visual line of sight of  the pilots, and stay certain distances away from airports or heliports.  According to FAA, the “blanket” 200-foot COA allows flights anywhere in  the country except restricted airspace and other areas, such as major  cities, where the FAA prohibits commercial UAS operations.expects the new policy will allow companies and individuals who want to  use UAS within these limitations to start flying much more quickly than  before. A company wanting to operate above 200 feet, or outside the  other rules set up by FAA, must obtain a separate COA.
FAA took additional steps in May 2015 to work with industry to safely  expand UAS operations. FAA announced its Pathfinder Program that will  partner FAA with companies to perform research in support of UAS  integration. These companies will focus on using UAS for specific  applications, such as news gathering and surveying crops. In addition,  two will focus on applications for beyond the visual line of sight of the  operator. One industry stakeholder stated the next step would be to  develop additional mechanisms to allow UAS operations beyond the  visual line of sight of the operator once technology supports greater use.
While accommodating UAS access, FAA and industry have taken steps  to educate UAS operators on how to safely operate. UAS industry  stakeholders and FAA have begun an educational campaign that  provides prospective users with information and guidance on flying safely  and responsibly. Specifically, they launched an informational website for  UAS operators to ease public concerns about privacy and support safer  UAS operations in the national airspace.announced plans to develop the “B4UFLY” smartphone application  designed to help UAS users, both model aircraft and recreational UAS  operators, know where it is safe and legal to fly. The application is  designed to let an operator know if it is safe and legal to fly in a specific  location.
section_title: Collaborating with UAS Stakeholders
paragraphs: FAA has worked with federal and industry stakeholders to coordinate  federal activities in support of conducting research and development and  creating UAS standards to facilitate UAS integration. As with other large  government-wide initiatives, achieving results for the nation increasingly  requires that federal agencies and others work together. FAA has worked  with the UAS Executive Committee to facilitate federal UAS activities and  RTCA Special Committee 228, ASTM International Committee F38, and  the UAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee to develop safety, reliability,  and performance standards for UAS.
Each collaborative group has defined different long-term goals in support  of UAS integration and has made progress toward the achieving these  goals.
The Executive Committee’s long-term goals involve working to solve  the broad range of technical, procedural, and policy issues affecting  UAS integration into the national airspace. In support of this objective,  the Executive Committee agencies, other public agencies, and  industry have also developed processes and procedures to safely  demonstrate small UAS operations in remote areas of the Arctic,  including beyond-line-of-site operations. The UAS demonstration  occurred in domestic and international airspace on and off the coast  of Alaska.
RTCA Special Committee 228 has set out its own goals across two  phases. Currently working toward completion of the first phase, RTCA  is developing minimum operational performance standards for detect  and avoid and command and control technologies for UASs. RTCA  has made progress toward this goal with help from the Executive  Committee. Specifically, the Executive Committee’s Science and  Research Panel developed a definition of “well clear” to help inform  RTCA Special Committee 228’s work.
The UAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee has a goal to develop a  report for FAA on its efforts to provide direction for UAS operational  criteria, among other tasks, by April 18, 2016.
ASTM International F38’s long-term goal involves developing and  publishing voluntary consensus standards for small and large UASs  as FAA requests them. ASTM International Committee F38 has  developed standards and recommendations to support FAA’s small  UAS rulemaking that cover elements such as systems design,  construction, and testing.
FAA has applied other interagency collaborative methods in support of  UAS integration including memorandums of understanding or agreement  (MOU) and conferences. FAA entered into MOUs with DOD and NASA  to expedite the COA process and ensure the availability of DOD’s data.
According to FAA officials, the MOUs eased collaboration with DOD and  NASA because the MOUs established roles and responsibilities for each  agency as well as procedures for DOD to obtain COAs. In addition, FAA  convenes meetings with test site officials and attends conferences where  UAS issues are discussed. For example, FAA regularly holds conference  calls and convenes technical interchange meetings with test site officials  to address test site issues. According to FAA, the technical interchange  meetings are opportunities for FAA to provide updates to the test sites  and discuss common areas of research interest. The manager of the  FAA’s UAS Integration Office has presented information about its UAS  efforts during industry conferences, such as the Association for  Unmanned Vehicle Systems International’s annual meeting. These  conferences allow FAA to provide guidance and updates directly to the  industry and public.
section_title: FAA’s Designated Test Sites Have Conducted UAS Test Flights and Addressed Challenges
subsections: section_title: FAA’s Designated Test Sites Are Operating and Conducting UAS Operations
paragraphs: Since being named in December 2013, the six designated test sites have  become operational, applying for and receiving authorization from FAA to  conduct test flights. Specifically, from April through August 2014, each of  the six test sites became operational and signed an Other Transaction  Agreement with FAA, establishing their research and development  relationship. All flights at a test site must be authorized under the  authority of a COA or an experimental certificate approved by FAA.  Since becoming operational, five of the six test sites received 48 COAs  and one experimental certificate in support of UAS operations resulting in  over 195 UAS flights across the five test sites. These flights provide the  operations and safety data to FAA as required by the COA. While there  are only a few contracts with industry thus far, according to test site  operators, these will be important if the test sites are to generate sufficient  revenue to remain in operation. Table 5 provides an overview of test-site  activity since the sites became operational.
According to all test sites, FAA approval for access to the airspace can be  a lengthy process taking 90 days or even longer. FAA and the test sites  have found ways to allow quicker access to the test site airspace and  relieve some administrative burden from FAA.
In February 2015, FAA awarded the Northern Plains Test Site in North  Dakota four broad area COAs that were aircraft specific. According to  a test site official, these COAs allowed designated aircraft to fly over  nearly the entire state of North Dakota and will make it easier to  accommodate industry for research. Furthermore, these COAs were a  positive step in allowing quicker access to the airspace at test sites.  Reducing FAA’s role in the process creates more certainty regarding  how long it will take an operator to access airspace at the test sites.  Specifically, the test site representative indicated FAA’s role was  reduced because there was a process that allowed aircraft to be  added to these existing COAs that was simpler than applying for  individual COAs.
In May 2015, FAA approved a “blanket” COA allowing the test sites to  conduct UAS operations at or below 200 feet anywhere in the national  airspace, similar to the authority provided to Section 333 exemptions.  In particular, these COAs will be for small UAS operations, during the  day, within line of sight of the operator, and the operations cannot  occur in restricted airspace and areas close to airports. According to  FAA, this will help improve UAS access allowing more operations in  support of research that can further the UAS integration process.  Previously, all UASs needed their own COA when operating at a test  site but this action by FAA will allow any small UASs to operate at the  test sites within the COA’s requirements.
The use of designated airworthiness representatives by the test sites  to review and approve experimental certificates may be quicker for  industry and relieve some of FAA’s workload. Industry benefits from  not having to lease its aircraft to the test site, as all test sites are  operated by public entities (academic institutions or federal, state, or  local governments) and thus all aircraft must be public aircraft, unless  they are operating under a special certificate. In addition, any  industry group working with the test site would not have to go through  FAA to receive the experimental certificate. The Nevada test site has  affiliated itself with a designated airworthiness representative, who  has approved an aircraft to operate under an experimental certificate  for the Nevada test site. According to FAA, the use of a designated  airworthiness representative allows it to better leverage its resources.
FAA officials and some test site officials told us that progress has been  made in part because of FAA’s and test sites’ efforts to work together.  Test site officials meet every 2 weeks with FAA officials to discuss current  issues, challenges, and progress. According to meeting minutes, these  meetings have been used to discuss many issues from training for  designated airworthiness representatives to processing of COAs. In  addition, the six test sites have developed operational and safety  processes that have been reviewed by FAA. Thus, while FAA has no  funding directed to the test sites to specifically support research and  development activities, FAA dedicates time and resources to supporting  the test sites, and FAA staff we spoke to believe test sites are a benefit to  the integration process and worth this investment.
section_title: Test Sites Faced Challenges during Their First Year
paragraphs: Despite the progress made since they began operating, according to test  site operators, they faced a number of challenges in the first year of  operations:
Guidance on research: According to FAA, because the test sites  receive no federal funding, FAA can neither direct specific research to  be conducted nor direct the test sites to share specific research data,  other than the operations and safety data required by the COA. The  Other Transaction Agreement for each test site defines the purpose of  the test sites as a place to conduct research and testing under FAA  safety oversight to support UAS integration into the national airspace.  The Other Transaction Agreement indicates the test sites will provide  FAA with UAS research and operational data to support the  development of procedures, standards, and regulations. However,  FAA officials told us that the Antideficiency Act may prevent the  agency from directing specific test site activities without providing  compensation. In October 2014, FAA provided a list of potential  research areas to the test sites to guide the research that each test  site may conduct. According to FAA, this document was not to be  construed as a directive but more as guidance for possible research  areas. However, three test sites told us this document was too broad  to be considered guidance for the research test sites should conduct.
Companies Conducting Beyond-  Visual-Line-of-Sight Testing Overseas  Insitu, Inc., a Boeing subsidiary,  conducted beyond-visual-line-of-sight  testing in Denmark in May, 2015 with a  ScanEagle UAS. The flights took place in  cooperation with the Danish Transport  Authority as part of an agreement signed  by Boeing and the airport to develop a  UAS Test Center in Denmark, which is  used for training, testing, and  development. The activity included  members of the public and private sector,  including the UAS Denmark Consortium,  a group of companies, government  organizations, and other entities  supporting UAS industry development.  The testing demonstrated capabilities for  a variety of industries, including  agriculture and aerial surveying,  emergency and natural-disaster  response, and defense and Arctic  surveillance. aircraft, meaning that civil operators still have to lease the aircraft to  the test site for operations. But, as one test site representative stated  a broad area COA, allowing civil operations at the test site would be  even more beneficial. Another test site representative indicated that  they will continue to work with FAA to make access easier allowing  flights at higher altitude with different aircraft.
Maintaining operations: While all the test sites had some level of initial  funding, from either private industry or state legislatures, to become  operational, they must attract UAS industry to the test sites to  generate enough revenue to maintain operations. However, test site  operators reported that test sites have additional requirements as  opposed to operating outside the test sites, including leasing the  aircraft to the test site to operate under the public COA. While test  sites have signed 22 contracts, there is a chance that some test sites  will not survive due to the financial burden. Some companies have  made a decision to go to other countries to conduct UAS testing  because they believe it takes less time to be approved for test flights.  For example, Amazon has reported it has testing under way in  multiple countries outside the United States, including a site in  Canada. In an effort to attract some industry operators, the Pan  Pacific Test Site has a location in Iceland where, according to the  Director, review and approval for test flights can happen much faster,  in as few as 10 days, relative to over 90 days a COA may take in this  country. In addition, the UAS industry is conducting tests in this  country outside the test sites. For example, CNN worked with Georgia  Institute of Technology.
section_title: FAA Supports Additional Research and Development Efforts
paragraphs: FAA has used cooperative research and development agreements,  federally funded research and development centers, and grants to  conduct other UAS research and development. These agreements for  research are similar to the Other Transaction Agreement that directs the  purpose and goals of the relationship between FAA and the research  entities. However, unlike the Other Transaction Agreement in place for  the test sites, according to FAA, many of these agreements have  language specifically addressing the sharing of research and data. The  following are examples of other resources FAA has devoted to UAS  integration research and development:
Cooperative research and development agreement: New Mexico  State University has had a flight test center operating for several  years under a cooperative research and development agreement with  FAA. The center serves a similar purpose to the designated test sites  but has been operating since 2007. The flight test center has  conducted research in many areas including nighttime flying and more  recently research into long-endurance UAS flights operating between  10,000 and 17,000 feet. According to an official, the New Mexico  State University’s flight test center has challenges with getting access  to the airspace for customers because the process to receive a COA  can be lengthy. In addition, this official told us the flight test center  would like authority to approve COAs to operate at the test center  because the FAA is backlogged and therefore approvals are delayed.  Finally, according to the flight test center operators, FAA can get data  from the research being conducted at the test site but does not direct  them what to provide. While the flight test center has operated under  a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement since 2007, in  May 2015 the Flight Test Center switched to an Other Transaction  Agreement to continue UAS testing.
Federally funded research and development center: MITRE manages  federal funded research and development centers for multiple federal  agencies including FAA and DOD. MITRE has ongoing work  supporting FAA’s UAS integration effort by supporting UAS standards  and rulemaking and supporting research planning and progress,  among other efforts. MITRE brings together the federal agencies— FAA, NASA, DOD, DHS, and others—to advance UAS integration. In  its role, according to MITRE officials, one of the biggest challenges is  how to integrate all the UAS-related work across the federal  government, academia, and private sector.
Grants: In August 2014, FAA awarded two grants to Georgia Tech  Research Corporation and the University of North Dakota to conduct  literature reviews of UAS issues. Georgia Tech is collecting  information on research being conducted on the effect of UAS  collisions on other airborne and ground based objects. The University  of North Dakota is looking at the UAS safety criteria and particularly if  UASs could be deadly. According to FAA, both studies will support  ongoing UAS research and help determine the applicability of past  studies.
Center of Excellence: In May 2015, FAA selected a team led by  Mississippi State University as the Center of Excellence for UAS.According to FAA, the goal of the Center of Excellence will be to  create a cost-sharing relationship among academia, industry, and  government that will focus on the primary research areas needed to  support UAS integration. FAA hopes the center could provide both  short- and long-term research through testing and analysis. In support  of it serving this purpose, the Center of Excellence has an annual  $500,000 budget for the next 10 years.
FAA also has additional resources to support the UAS integration,  including facilities working on research and development and  management of FAA’s other research and development efforts for UAS  integration. FAA’s William J. Hughes Technical Center houses staff in  charge of supporting and managing FAA’s designated test sites.  While  the test sites do not have specific funding, FAA has dedicated resources  located at Hughes Technical Center to support the set up and ongoing  operations of the test sites. For example, COA data are collected and  analyzed at the Hughes Technical Center. In addition, FAA has  participated in the twice-a-year technical interchange meetings with the  test sites. These meetings have brought together the test sites and FAA  to address issues in the set-up and operation of the test sites.  Furthermore, FAA has staff supporting the test sites through review of  test site operation and safety procedures and manuals to support the  monthly reporting of the operational and safety data required by each  COA.
The William J. Hughes Technical Center is located in Atlantic City, New Jersey, and  contains laboratories supporting aviation research, development, testing, and evaluation  of air traffic control and aircraft safety among other aviation areas. It also serves as the  primary facility supporting the Next Generation Air Traffic System.
section_title: Other Countries Have Established Regulations, and Some Allow More Commercial Operations Than the United States
subsections: section_title: Numerous Countries Allow UAS Operations
paragraphs: According to numerous studies and stakeholders we interviewed, many  countries around the world, have been allowing commercial UAS  operations in their airspace for differing purposes. We also identified a  number of countries that allow commercial UAS operations and have  done so for years. Specifically, Canada and Australia have regulations  pertaining to UAS that have been in place since 1996 and 2002,  respectively. According to a recent MITRE study, the types of commercial  operations allowed vary by country and include aerial surveying,  photography, and other lines of business. For example, Japan has  allowed UAS operations in the agriculture industry since the 1980’s to  help apply fertilizer and pesticide.
EASA is the European Union Authority in aviation safety. The main activities of the  organization include the strategy and safety management, the certification of aviation  products and the oversight of approved organizations and EU Member States. require a risk assessment of the proposed operation and an approval to  operate under restrictions specific to the operation. The final proposed  category, certified operations, would be required for those higher-risk  operations, specifically when the risk rises to a level comparable to  manned operations. This category goes beyond FAA’s proposed rules by  proposing regulations for large UAS operations and operations beyond  the pilot’s visual line of sight. As other countries work toward integration,  standards organizations from Europe and the United States are  coordinating to try and ensure harmonized standards. Specifically, RTCA  and the European Organization for Civil Aviation Equipment (EUROCAE)  have joint committees focused on harmonization of UAS standards.
section_title: UAS Regulations in Australia, Canada, France, and the United Kingdom Are Similar to Each Other and to Proposed Regulations in This Country
paragraphs: We studied the UAS regulations of Australia, Canada, France, and the  United Kingdom and found that these countries impose similar types of  requirements and restrictions on commercial UAS operations. For  example, all these countries except Canada require government-issued  certification documents before UASs can operate commercially.addition, each country requires that UAS operators document how they  ensure safety during flights and their UAS regulations go into significant  detail on subjects such as remote pilot training and licensing  requirements. For example, the United Kingdom has established “national  qualified entities” that conduct assessments of operators and make  recommendations to the Civil Aviation Authority as to whether to approve  that operator. Similar regulations in these countries continue to evolve. In  November 2014, Canada issued new rules creating exemptions for  commercial use of small UASs weighing 4.4 pounds or less and from 4.4  pounds to 55 pounds. UASs in these categories can commercially  operate without a government-issued certification but must still follow  operational restrictions, such as a height restriction and a requirement to  operate within line of sight. Transport Canada officials told us this  arrangement allows them to use scarce resources to regulate situations   In  of relatively high risk. Australia, in similar fashion, is considering relieving  UASs lighter than 4.4 pounds from its requirement to obtain a UAS  Operator’s certificate. France’s regulation describes 4 weight-based  categories of UAS as well as 4 operational scenarios of increasing  complexity. The regulations then discuss which UAS categories can  operate in each scenario. FAA, by electing to focus on UASs up to 55  pounds in its Small UAS NPRM, has taken a similar risk-based approach.
The United States has not yet finalized regulations specifically addressing  its small UAS operations, but if UASs were to begin flying today in the  national airspace system under the provisions of FAA’s proposed rules,  their operating restrictions would be generally similar to regulations in  these other four countries. However, there would be some differences in  the details. For example, FAA proposes altitude restrictions of below 500  feet, while Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom restrict operations  to similar but slightly lower altitudes. Other proposed regulations require  that FAA certify UAS pilots prior to commencing operations, while Canada  and France do not require pilot certification in certain low risk scenarios.  While FAA continues to finalize the small UAS rule—a process that could  take until late 2016 or early 2017—other countries continue to move  ahead with UAS integration. Thus, when the rule is finalized the operating  restrictions in this country may be well behind what exists in other  countries if the final rule reflects the proposed rule. Table 6 shows how  FAA’s proposed rules compare with the regulations of Australia, Canada,  France, and the United Kingdom.
While regulations in these countries generally require that UAS  operations remain within the pilot’s visual line of sight, some countries are  moving toward allowing limited operations beyond the pilot’s visual line of  sight. For example, according to Australian civil aviation officials, they are  developing a new UAS regulation that would allow operators to request a  certificate allowing beyond-line-of-sight operations. However, use would  be very limited and allowed only on a case-by-case basis. Similarly,  according to a French civil aviation official, France approves on a case- by-case basis, very limited beyond-line-of-sight operations. Finally, in the  United States, there have been beyond-line-of-sight operations in the  Arctic, and NASA, FAA and the UAS industry have successfully  demonstrated detect-and-avoid technology, which is necessary for  beyond line-of-sight operations.
Like the United States, Australia, Canada, France, and the United  Kingdom distinguish between recreational model aircraft and commercial  UASs and have issued guidelines for safe operation. For example, the  United Kingdom defines model aircraft as any small unmanned aircraft,  weighing less than 44 pounds, or large unmanned aircraft weighing more  than 44 pounds, that is used for sporting and recreational purposes.  Australia makes no practicable distinction between a small UAV and a  model aircraft except that of use—model aircraft are flown only for the  sport of flying them. However, Australia also defines a giant model aircraft  as one weighing between 55 pounds and 331 pounds.
Approvals for commercial UAS operations have increased in these four  countries and some allow more commercial operations. Since 2011 the  number of approvals for commercial operations in France has increased  every year. According to a Civil Aviation Authority official, in 2014, there  were about 3,600 commercial UAS operators. In Canada, according to a  Transport Canada official, there were over 1,600 approvals for  commercial and research related UAS operations in 2014. As previously  mentioned, certain commercial operations in Canada do not need  approval as of November 2014 and there may be even more UAS  operations. The United Kingdom’s Civil Aviation Authority attributes the  growth to UASs in their country to the UASs’ becoming less expensive  and simpler to operate. In the United Kingdom, as of February 2015,  there were 483 commercial UAS operators, and this number has  increased every year since 2010. Similar to the United Kingdom, Australia  has seen an increase in commercial UAS operators since 2010 with  currently over 200 approved commercial operators. Australia’s Parliament  attributes the growth to improvements in UASs’ piloting and control  technologies, as well as reductions in UAS prices. With FAA’s approvals  for commercial exemptions exceeding 500 as of June 9, 2015, the United  States has closed the gap with some other countries’ level of commercial  use.
section_title: Other Countries Face Common Challenges to UAS Integration
paragraphs: Other countries face challenges that are common across some countries,  including the United States, trying to integrate UAS operations.  Specifically, some of the challenges are:
Technology shortfalls and unresolved spectrum issues. Technology  needs and concerns about available spectrum constrain full  integration of UASs into airspace with manned aircraft in the United  States and in countries around the world. UASs’ current inability to  detect and avoid other aircraft, the lack of a standard for command  and control systems, and no dedicated and secure frequency  spectrum are technical challenges preventing full UAS integration into  the national airspace. However, organizations around the world are  looking to address these technology issues and develop standards to  support safe UAS operations. At the worldwide level, the International  Civil Aviation Organization is addressing how UAS integration would  affect its existing standards. At the European level, the European UAS  Roadmap contains a strategic research and development plan that  describes anticipated deliverables along with key milestones,  timelines, and resources needed. Separate from the international  organizations, researchers in individual countries are also addressing  these challenges. For example, in February 2014, Australian  researchers achieved what was then believed to be a world-first  breakthrough for small UASs by developing an onboard system that  has enabled a UAS to detect another aircraft using vision while in  flight.
Safe operations by recreational users. Countries around the world  also face challenges in ensuring that UAS purchasers operate them  safely. As UASs become more affordable, and increasingly available  some individuals are conducting unsafe or illegal UAS operations. In  July 2014, Australia’s Parliament reported on testimony, from several  witnesses, that UASs are being flown by operators who unknowingly  break safety rules, thereby posing a safety risk to manned aircraft and  persons on the ground. In response to unsafe operations, a few  countries have placed outright bans on UAS operations. For example,  in India, in response to the surge in interest for commercial and  recreational use, the government placed an outright ban on any UAS  use until its civil aviation agency issues regulations. Similar to the  “Know Before You Fly” education campaign in this country, other  countries have sought to educate operators. For example, the United  Kingdom has developed and distributed a brochure describing safe  flying practices. In Australia, UAS purchasers receive a similar  document when they purchase the product. Canada has launched a  national safety awareness campaign for UASs, which aims to help  Canadians better understand the risks and responsibilities of flying  UASs. In addition, Transport Canada has set up a web page that  provides safe guidelines for flying UASs and answers frequently  asked questions  While countries face some UAS integration challenges that are similar to  the United States, other challenges such as airspace complexity and  ease of regulatory change, can make integration in this country more  difficult. Airspace complexity is one aspect in which the United States  differs from other countries. According to FAA, the U.S. airspace is the  busiest and most complex in the world, where UASs, after integration,  would share with more than 300,000 general aviation aircraft, ranging  from amateur-built aircraft, rotorcraft, and balloons, to highly sophisticated   Introducing potentially large numbers of UAS  turbojets (executive jets).by hobbyists, farmers, law enforcement agencies, and others would add  to this complexity. In contrast, according to a study by MITRE, other  countries have fewer aviation aircraft, a situation that may make  integrating UAS easier. For example, the U.K. has about 20,000  registered general aviation aircraft, while Australia has around 8,400. A  study conducted by MITRE for FAA indicated this factor as one that can  affect the speed of change and adaptation in various aviation  environments.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to Department of Transportation (DOT)  for review and comment. In comments, which were provided in an email,  DOT stated that the report addresses many of the challenges of UAS  integration but does not address any environmental concerns and that the  report should state that it did not examine the environmental  considerations of UAS integration. DOT further noted that FAA is  conducting research to understand the environmental impacts of UAS  integration, the role that UASs play in National Environmental Policy Act  compliance, and the applicability of noise standards regulations to  UASs.integration. The discussion of challenges in the report does not mention  environmental concerns because it focuses on challenges the test sites  faced during their first year of operation, as reported by the test site  operators. We did clarify in our scope and methodology description that  we did not cover environmental considerations of UAS integration. DOT  also provided technical comments on the draft that we incorporated as  appropriate.
We did not examine the environmental considerations of UAS  As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of  Transportation and the appropriate congressional committees. In addition,  the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This report focuses on FAA’s efforts to develop procedures to allow UAS  use within the national airspace system. Specifically, we reviewed (1) the  status of FAA’s progress toward safe integration of UAS into the national  airspace, (2) research and development support from FAA’s test sites and  other resources, and (3) how other countries have progressed toward  UAS integration into their airspace for commercial purposes.
To address the three objectives, we reviewed and synthesized a range of  published reports from GAO and FAA that included general background  information on a variety of related issues, such as FAA’s framework for  UAS integration, efforts to accommodate ongoing research and  commercial UAS use, and UAS technology challenges. We reviewed  other relevant background literature on related issues, including results  from databases, such as ProQuest® and Nexis®, trade publications,  literature from industry stakeholder groups, and information from the  Internet. We also reviewed provisions of the FAA Modernization and  Reform Act of 2012, and the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for small  UAS operations. In addition, we reviewed more detailed and specific  documentation related to the different objectives, as described below.
To determine FAA’s progress toward safe integration of UAS into the  national airspace, we:
Reviewed documents provided by officials and conducted semi- structured interviews with officials at federal agencies, including the  FAA’s Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration and Research and  Development Offices, the Department of Defense (DOD), the National  Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Department  of Homeland Security. We reviewed FAA’s Comprehensive Plan and  Roadmap for UAS integration.
Interviewed representatives from FAA’s Joint Planning and  Development Office, the UAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee,  RTCA, and MITRE Corporation as well as voluntary standards  development organization ASTM International. We interviewed  representatives from the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems  International, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, American  Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and the Academy of Model  Aeronautics. We also obtained information on the Federal  Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 Section 333 exemptions FAA  granted from FAA and http://www.regulations.gov2014 to May 2015.
Reviewed documents provided by and interviewed federal and  industry representatives from the collaborative groups—the Executive  Committee, RTCA Special Committee 228, UAS Aviation Rulemaking  Committee, and ASTM International Committee F38—and industry  groups that are involved in FAA’s efforts to integrate UAS into the  national airspace system  To identify research and development support from FAA’s test sites and  other resources, we:
Reviewed and analyzed documents from each of the six test sites  where FAA has recently allowed UAS operations including the  applications submitted by the selected test sites and quarterly reports  provided to FAA.
Conducted semi-structured interviews with officials from the test sites,  including the State of Nevada, the University of Alaska, the North  Dakota Department of Commerce, Griffiss International Airport, the  Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, and Texas A&M  University Corpus Christie to determine the issues encountered in an  effort to become operational, conduct research, share the research  results with FAA, and receive support or guidance from FAA.
Spoke with representatives from other universities with centers of  research on UAS technology and issues, including New Mexico State  University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory,  the Humans and Autonomy Lab at Duke University, and the Georgia  Institute of Technology to obtain information about the resources FAA  has dedicated to conducting other UAS research and development.
To identify how the United States compares to other countries in the  progress and development of UAS use for commercial purposes, we:
Developed case studies for four countries that have made progress in  integrating UASs into their national airspace—France (Direction  générale de l’aviation civile); the United Kingdom (UK Civil Aviation  Authority); Australia (Australia Civil Aviation Safety Authority); and  Canada (Transport Canada Civil Aviation). We selected these  countries based on several factors including the status of regulatory  requirements for commercial UASs, beyond-line-of-site activities, and  whether the country allows non-military UAS to operate in the  airspace. We obtained the UAS regulations of each country and  interviewed civil aviation authorities in each to obtain additional  information about the issues encountered with UAS.
Interviewed other stakeholders familiar with the UAS activities  currently occurring in other countries to determine the factors that  influenced their country’s policies regarding UASs including the  International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).
We conducted this performance audit from January 2014 to July 2015 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Selected Requirements and Status for Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) Integration under the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, as of December 2014
paragraphs: FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012  requirement   Enter into agreements with appropriate government  agencies to simplify the process for issuing Certificates of  Waiver or Authorization (COA) or waivers for public  unmanned aerial systems (UAS).
Status of action   In process—memorandum of agreement (MOA) with  DOD signed Sept. 2013; MOA with Department of  Justice signed Mar. 2013; MOA with NASA signed Mar.  2013; MOA with Department of Interior signed Jan.  2014; MOA with the Office of the Director, Operational  Test and Evaluation (DOD) signed Mar. 2014; MOA  with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration  still in draft.
Expedite the issuance of COAs for public safety entities  Establish a program to integrate UASs into the national  airspace at six test ranges. This program is to terminate 5  years after date of enactment.
Develop an Arctic UAS operation plan and initiate a  process to work with relevant federal agencies and  national and international communities to designate  permanent areas in the Arctic where small unmanned  aircraft may operate 24 hours per day for research and  commercial purposes.
Determine whether certain UAS can fly safely in the  national airspace before the completion of the Act’s  requirements for a comprehensive plan and rulemaking to  safely accelerate the integration of civil UASs into the  national airspace or the Act’s requirement for issuance of  guidance regarding the operation of public UASs including  operating a UAS with a COA or waiver.
Develop a comprehensive plan to safely accelerate  integration of civil UASs into national airspace.
Issue guidance regarding operation of civil UAS to  expedite COA process; provide a collaborative process  with public agencies to allow an incremental expansion of  access into the national airspace as technology matures  and the necessary safety analysis and data become  available, until standards are completed and technology  issues are resolved; facilitate capability of public entities to  develop and use test ranges; provide guidance on public  entities’ responsibility for operation.
Make operational at least one project at a test range.
Approve and make publically available a 5-year road map  for the introduction of civil UAS into national airspace, to  be updated annually.
Submit to Congress a copy of the comprehensive plan.
Publish in the Federal Register the Final Rule on small  UAS.
FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012  requirement   Publish in the Federal Register a Notice of Proposed  Rulemaking to implement recommendations of the  comprehensive plan.
Publish in the Federal Register an update to the  Administration’s policy statement on UAS in Docket No.  FAA-2006-25714.
Achieve safe integration of civil UAS into the national  airspace.
Publish in the Federal Register a Final Rule to implement  the recommendations of the comprehensive plan.
Develop and implement operational and certification  requirements for public UAS in national airspace.
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, the following individuals made  important contributions to this report: Brandon Haller, Assistant Director;  Geoffrey Hamilton, Daniel Hoy, Eric Hudson, Bonnie Pignatiello Leer, Ed  Menoche, Josh Ormond, Amy Rosewarne, Andrew Stavisky, and Sarah  Veale.