By: Jennifer Ambrose, Autonomy Global Ambassador – Aviation Regulations
On August 7, 2025, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued its long‑awaited Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), Normalizing Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Operations, known as the BVLOS Rule. The comment period closed October 6, 2025, after drawing thousands of responses, including pushback on the proposal to give UAS operating under proposed part 108 right‑of‑way over aircraft not equipped with ADS‑B Out.
On January 28, 2026, the FAA unexpectedly reopened the comment period for 14 days, this time focused on one of the thorniest elements of the proposal: how to use electronic conspicuity (EC) technologies, including ADS‑B Out and alternatives, to ensure BVLOS drones and crewed aircraft can see-and-avoid each other. The short extension drew another wave of comments from UAS operators, manufacturers, general aviation, balloonists, paraglider pilots, public safety agencies and communications and EC technology companies.
What follows is a look at the major battle lines emerging around EC, right‑of‑way, and detect‑and‑avoid (DAA) as the FAA charts its next steps on BVLOS.
Right-of-way and EC: Safety vs. Access
UAS manufacturers broadly backed EC equipage, especially options beyond traditional ADS‑B Out, seeing electronic visibility as a key enabler of scalable BVLOS operations. Many UAS operators seeking part 108 approvals endorsed the FAA’s proposed right‑of‑way shift, arguing that giving equipped UAS priority over non‑equipped aircraft would reduce the need for expensive onboard DAA systems.
General aviation (GA) interests saw it very differently. While many GA commenters supported UAS using EC, they questioned whether current alternate EC devices are mature or reliable enough to give pilots timely, actionable cues to avoid a drone, especially at low altitude and in congested airspace. Paragliding, ballooning, and ultralight communities warned that their aircraft often cannot practically carry ADS‑B Out or similar equipment and lack the maneuverability to dodge a UAS on short notice, even if that UAS is electronically conspicuous.
Public safety organizations landed in favor of EC, emphasizing the need for interoperable solutions that support diverse mission profiles and mixed fleets. At the same time, many other commenters argued that the FAA’s proposed right‑of‑way changes would add complexity, erode safety and impose significant equipage or receiver costs on manned aircraft that currently have no such requirements.
Two influential trade groups proposed different ways to redraw the lines. The Small UAV Coalition urged the FAA to tie right‑of‑way below 500 feet AGL to universal EC equipage, requiring manned aircraft to carry ADS‑B Out or equivalent EC to retain priority. The Commercial Drone Alliance (CDA), by contrast, advocated for consistent low‑altitude rules that keep UAS yielding to cooperative manned aircraft, while calling for ADS‑B Out or alternate EC for all manned aircraft operating below 500 feet.
Should EC Match ADS‑B Out Performance?
A central question in the reopened docket revolved whether new EC devices should be held to ADS‑B Out performance requirements or allowed to operate under a more flexible standard.
The Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) argued that low‑altitude cooperative traffic needs a single, interoperable EC baseline and that this baseline should be anchored in ADS‑B‑derived solutions.
Wing Aviation, however, highlighted that devices such as the uAvionix SkyEcho are intentionally designed for situational awareness and collision avoidance in proximate airspace, not for the full range of ADS‑B Out use cases. Wing suggested that these EC devices could still be compatible with existing ADS‑B In receivers used by other aviation stakeholders, while recommending use of the 978 MHz band to reduce clutter from distant targets.
Commenters from the communications sector showed strong interest in EC as a networked capability. Qualcomm, for example, proposed a two‑pronged architecture built around a network‑enabled EC application using a cellular transceiver, paired with an A2X local broadcast function to deliver ultra‑low‑latency, short‑range situational awareness.
Standards and Performance: Is DO‑282C Enough?
Manufacturers generally pointed to RTCA DO‑282C as a logical starting point for alternate EC standards. Several commenters endorsed its use but acknowledged that it does not currently satisfy all the performance requirements laid out in proposed part 108.
CDA and others pushed for performance‑based EC specifications that would allow multiple standards to evolve, as long as they remain compatible and interoperable in the low‑altitude system. The goal, in their view, is to avoid locking the industry into a single prescriptive standard while still ensuring that any EC solution contributes meaningfully to collision risk reduction.
How Should EC Indicate Malfunctions?
Most commenters supported clear malfunction indications for EC systems, recognizing that unreliable or silently failing equipment could undermine safety and operator confidence. Public safety agencies, in particular, harped on the importance of failure alerts during time‑critical missions, where operators need to rapidly adjust tactics or terminate flight if situational awareness tools degrade.
The Airline Pilots’ Association (ALPA) agreed that EC malfunction indications are necessary but cautioned that any alerting concept must be supported by robust safety assessments. ALPA raised concerns about cockpit distraction, alert fatigue, human factors issues, and the risk that pilots might develop a false sense of security that weakens traditional see‑and‑avoid discipline. Some GA commenters also warned that adding more devices and alerts to minimally equipped aircraft or cramped cockpits could be counterproductive during critical phases of flight.
DAA Requirements: Layered Protection or Unnecessary Burden?
The reopened comment period also surfaced divergent views on whether part 108 should include explicit non‑cooperative DAA requirements for UAS.
Large corporate UAS operators and manufacturers that already fly with some form of DAA tended to strongly support such requirements. Drawing on data from ongoing package delivery operations, Amazon Prime Air reiterated its position that DAA for all part 108 UAS is essential, not only for avoiding non‑cooperative aircraft but also for managing risks from birds, kites and other unexpected obstacles.
Wing Aviation took the opposite stance, opposing non‑cooperative DAA mandates on the grounds that they would add weight and operational complexity without commensurate safety benefit in all use cases.
GA and other manned aircraft interests generally backed DAA obligations for BVLOS UAS while resisting new equipage requirements or right‑of‑way changes for crewed aircraft. ALPA strongly objected to any construct that would shift collision‑avoidance responsibility from UAS operators onto manned aircraft pilots.
AUVSI urged the FAA to adopt a “layered detect‑and‑avoid” philosophy that includes both technical and procedural mitigations. The association pointed to measures such as geographic constraints, strategic deconfliction, and flight pause or hold protocols, and encouraged the FAA to keep recognizing offboard surveillance, geofencing and parachute‑based containment as legitimate components of a broader collision‑risk mitigation framework.
Unanswered Questions: EC Definitions and Part 146
Notably absent from the reopened questions were issues surrounding proposed part 146, which would govern Aviation Service Providers (ASPs) that may eventually deliver EC or DAA services as a business model. Some commenters, including Northern Plains UAS Test Site, voiced support for network‑based EC concepts that could rely heavily on future part 146 providers, even as standards for those providers remain undefined.
The General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) and others flagged the more fundamental problem that EC itself remains poorly and inconsistently defined. Without clearer terminology and performance expectations, many stakeholders said they struggled to provide meaningful input on standards that have yet to be fully framed.
FAA’s Path Forward on BVLOS and EC
BVLOS operations have long been a policy sticking point. The BVLOS Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC), which delivered recommendations to the FAA in 2022, could not reach consensus, which shows how difficult it is to reconcile safety, security and operational demands in low‑altitude airspace.
The reopened comment period shows those tensions remain. The battle lines look like this:
- UAS operators seek operational freedom and scalable BVLOS access
- UAS operators and manufacturers favor low‑cost EC and DAA solutions with minimum equipage/ manufacturing changes.
- GA and other manned aircraft stakeholders want to retain the right‑of‑way and avoid new manned aircraft equipage mandates.
- Public safety users prioritize airspace awareness and reliable failure indicators.
- Cellular and communications companies see a major market for EC‑enabled services and infrastructure.
Whatever final BVLOS rule emerges is likely to give each of these groups something they want, and something they do not. If the FAA leans into the themes in this latest round of comments, the final rule will almost certainly include some EC requirement for part 108 UAS and, at least in low‑altitude mixed‑use airspace, a reaffirmation of right‑of‑way for manned aircraft.
The current Administration has signaled strong interest in seeing the BVLOS rule finalized quickly, driven in part by industry pressure to unlock routine BVLOS operations. Despite the brief reopening of the docket, the FAA could still move to a final rule sometime in 2026 or early 2027, though a more conservative timeline would push release into late 2027. With roughly 1.9 million comments associated with the NPRM now listed on the Federal Register, the agency faces a formidable task in meeting Administrative Procedure Act requirements and demonstrating that it has meaningfully considered the record. A rushed rulemaking would make that obligation far harder to meet, yet could shape the future of BVLOS and EC for years to come.