The Delta Between Approved BVLOS Operations and FAA NPRM: Substantial Gaps Could Impact Commercial Drone Integration

By: Dawn Zoldi

The FAA intends its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on BVLOS operations to codify standards that move operations permitted today, primarily through waivers or exemptions, more toward a repeatable regulatory framework for BVLOS and advanced automated drone missions. However, as experts emphasized during the Commercial Drone Alliance (CDA) BVLOS Stakeholder Summit, the “delta” between current, approved BVLOS operations and what would be permitted under the NPRM remains substantial. 

Some of the main provisions that raised concern touched on operational approval paths, operator and organizational responsibility, automation and autonomy, population density categories, airworthiness validation, right-of-way protocols, detect-and-avoid (DAA) technologies and background check requirements. In fact, the overwhelming majority of drone operators revealed that, under the proposed rule, their current operations would have to cease. 

As the industry finalizes their evaluations and writes public comments, the panel urges the industry to treat their commentary, outlined below, as part of an ongoing discussion rather than final judgments. So read on, but make your own assessment. 

The proposed rule envisions a future of ubiquitous drone automation and autonomy. Experts highlighted how codifying increased autonomy, from reducing pilot workload to enabling unsupervised or minimally supervised drone missions, can unlock real operational and economic benefits for utilities, infrastructure monitoring and public safety, for missions like automated asset inspections and rapid emergency response. 

According to some experts, however, the NPRM draws nuanced distinctions in supervisor oversight…sometimes inconsistently. For instance, the draft rule provides that, in select operational scenarios, such as when the system has passed a specific validation check or employs a designated flight coordinator, a single supervisor is permitted to oversee a fleet of highly automated drones, with many missions running simultaneously and requiring only broad organizational control. This scenario is envisioned for routine, scheduled missions in environments like energy substations or large-scale infrastructure inspections, where automation and data-driven processes are prioritized for efficiency and safety. 

But in other contexts, notably those classified under more restrictive permit regimes or when the operation is not covered by automated or certified risk mitigations, the rule reverts to legacy aviation paradigms where only one supervisor may monitor one drone at a time. This is the case even if the drones themselves are operating autonomously and the technological capacity for scaling supervision is demonstrably in place. 

These restrictions appear particularly arbitrary, especially for public safety agencies, utilities and large enterprises that already deploy hundreds of drones with centralized oversight under waivers. They would be forced to limit or restructure their operations under the new requirements. This legal limitation does not align with the operational safety record or automation capability demonstrated in current BVLOS waivered missions.

Experts suggested that a more streamlined, consistent approach that ties supervisor requirements directly to real-world safety, validation and proven technological oversight, would enable better scaling, workforce efficiency and broader adoption of automated drone solutions in critical sectors, without sacrificing safety or accountability.

Industry participants expressed strong concern that while the NPRM aims to replace waivers and exemptions with standard permits or certificates, some requirements may inadvertently regress operators from some of the freedoms currently enabled through the FAA’s ongoing waiver system. 

For example, recent streamlining has allowed public safety agencies to receive nationwide waivers for operations to 200 feet above ground level and, in some cases, up to 400 feet above infrastructure, including in dense urban environments. These waivers are not geographically or fleet-limited, unlike the stricter geographic and fleet-size boundaries introduced in the proposed permit structure.

The broad consensus: the new rule must not undermine recent progress and gains made through collaborative, waiver-driven advancements. The FAA has moved the needle substantially in the last two years. Maintaining that momentum, while preventing backsliding, remains imperative. Experts called for the new framework to allow at least as much capability as current waiver regimes.

The NPRM’s approach to airworthiness, a blend of declarative certification and design/test requirements, received both praise and criticism:

• What Works: Some praised the move toward recognition of industry standards and the potential for declarative processes, which aim to be more attuned to the needs of small UAS and automated fleets.
• What Doesn’t: Experts cautioned that aspects of the new airworthiness section appear to duplicate or regress into prescriptive, certificate-driven processes that have proven slow, inflexible and ill-suited to small, highly automated systems. 

Existing FAA decision criteria and current operational approvals have enabled hundreds of thousands of flights in densely populated areas, with demonstrated safety through rigorous change management and operational oversight.

A key theme was the “interplay” between airworthiness validation and operator certification. Experts recommended that airworthiness demonstrated at the manufacturer or organizational level should unlock tangible operational latitude. The draft rule lacks consistency and clear reciprocal credit between these domains, which experts believe remains vital for safety and scalability.

Industry leaders lauded the proposed shift toward organizational, Safety Management System (SMS)-driven responsibility. Transferring operational risk management from individual pilots to certified organizations, especially those with large fleets, alleviates undue pilot-level liability and aligns with broader aviation best practices.

Experts identified simplified training and operator qualification requirements, tailored to the scale and automation level of actual missions, as positive developments that will ensure operator competency and enhance scalability. Together, with more streamlined medical and drug/alcohol standards, these shifts allow for greater workforce inclusion and effective crew management without sacrificing safety. 

Nevertheless, over-burdening organizations with opaque or excessive administrative requirements, particularly in areas such as maintenance documentation and compliance tracking, poses a significant risk to operational scalability. Several industry leaders expressed concern that, while organizational SMS responsibility offers a modern alternative to individual pilot certification, the NPRM introduces maintenance recordkeeping, validation and reporting processes that may be disproportionately complex for small-to-medium operators and unnecessarily resource-intensive, even for large fleets.

For example, proposed rules around maintenance intervals and the verification of compliance with evolving standards may require organizations to implement intricate tracking systems, submit frequent updates and maintain exhaustive records on each drone, mission and part replacement. These obligations could go well beyond practical risk management needs, do not necessarily scale with an operator’s size and would create an administrative burden that threatens to divert resources away from actual safety oversight and mission execution. 

To maximize benefits, experts urge the FAA to define compliance and recordkeeping requirements with flexibility and proportionality, attuned to operator complexity and automation maturity. This will ensure robust safety oversight without being needlessly onerous.

One of the most debated NPRM provisions relates to shielded airspace and infrastructure flyovers. The draft rule proposes limits on proximity to infrastructure (e.g. flying within 50 feet of railroads, power lines, substations) and enshrines definitions that conflict with precedents set in recent FAA approvals that already enable utilities and pipeline operators to fly up to 100-200 feet above infrastructure.

This rule configuration would impact critical industries that rely on shielded environments for safe, efficient routine inspections. It raises concerns about loss of operational flexibility, increased approval overhead and potential misalignment with the operational risk models previously negotiated through waivers.

Experts suggested that the FAA should take account of shielded environment precedents, harmonize definitions with past waivers and reconsider arbitrary distance limitations to reflect actual safety data and risk mitigation capabilities developed in real-world settings.

The NPRM designates detect-and-avoid (DAA) technologies as a core pillar of BVLOS safety. It envisages compulsory detection capabilities for both cooperative (ADS-B/Electronic Conspicuity (EC)-equipped) and non-cooperative (no transponder) aircraft, especially in Class B/C airspace and high-density population zones.

For cooperative aircraft, the rule would finally permit portable EC and ADS-B receivers in the U.S., long proven overseas, but not legal here. This offers practical mitigation for airspace separation. 

However, for non-cooperative traffic, panelists warned that mandating onboard radar, vision or acoustic DAA remains technically and financially out of reach for most small drones and typical missions. They argued such requirements could impose impractical costs and operational burdens, particularly where risk is already managed through shielded airspace or cooperative mitigation. Experts urged regulators to calibrate requirements based on true risk and operational experience.

The NPRM’s use of population density categories to define operational boundaries and safety requirements drew criticism for relying on survey-driven datasets that lack site-specific fidelity and produce arbitrary regulatory thresholds. 

The FAA’s categories, ranging from low to “category five” for the highest density, are intended to stratify required operator qualifications and technological mitigations, such as DAA systems and certification levels. The FAA proposes the underlying mapping should primarily be based on LandScan USA. LandScan-based categories would be used to determine whether a given location is considered rural, suburban, or urban, with Category Five representing the most densely populated zones. 

However, experts highlighted that the tool’s coarse granularity leads to misclassifications. For example, a small city or university campus may be mapped as Cat Five, even when it does not present the risks typically associated with metropolitan cores. This triggers disproportionate regulatory obligations, including mandatory DAA capability or certificate operator requirements, where the actual risk profile may be minimal.

This reliance on generalized data means that routine, low-risk operations, such as infrastructure inspection at substations or utility lines, may be unduly restricted if they happen to cross into a high-category tile on the map. Critical infrastructure operators and public safety agencies expressed concern that the statutory population thresholds create impractical hurdles for service delivery and would delay or prevent essential missions simply because of mapping anomalies.

Industry stakeholders advocated for:

• Up-To-Date Maps: More refined, current mapping datasets that reflect the true distribution of people and risks for typical operations.
• Operational Flexibility: Allowing real-world mitigations and mission-specific safety cases to take precedence over arbitrary statistical cutoffs.
• Risk-Based Regulatory Frameworks: that adapt certification and technology requirements to the nature of the operation and environment, not just population statistics.

This broader, more adaptive approach would help prevent unnecessary obstacles to critical services, such as utilities, public safety agencies and controlled-access facilities, while channeling regulatory burden where risk profile and mission type actually warrant it.

Background check requirements for those with access to drone payloads or delivery boxes emerged as a flashpoint. The NPRM controversially calls for TSA Level 3 checks for all workers touching drone-bound packages, including retail or restaurant staff, regardless of order source or operational context.

Industry experts highlighted that this approach imposes significant cost and feasibility burdens, with questionable impact on safety or security. Delivery networks today function safely without blanket checks. Companies generally mitigate risk through existing protocols, operating under strict access controls or existing vetting processes and duty segregation. Current practices and actual security needs, they argued, render the new proposal either duplicative or incompatible with normal business operations. Experts strongly advocated for risk-based security approaches that align with existing supply chain best processes.

Stakeholders raised questions about the rule’s impact on flight testing and demonstration missions. The permit-only approach appears to limit manufacturers’ ability to test and validate new products or operational concepts in populated, real-world environments. This would potentially stifle innovation and learning. They stressed the need for well-defined paths that allow both remote, controlled testing and operational evaluation in field conditions, with clear delineation between R&D and commercial operations to support responsible technology advancement.

The CDA BVLOS Stakeholder Summit showcased deeply engaged, nuanced industry perspectives on the FAA’s BVLOS NPRM. While experts found much to commend, including steps toward automation, streamlined operator requirements and organizational SMS-driven oversight, they highlighted meaningful concerns about:

• Regressive operational limitations
• Technical feasibility
• Arbitrary density definitions 
• Cost impositions

Experts consistently stressed the importance of ongoing dialogue and comprehensive comments during the NPRM period. The rule contains strong intent toward scalable, standardized BVLOS operations. But maintaining and expanding current operational freedoms, honing risk and safety management protocols, clarifying technical requirements and harmonizing with real-world precedents remain critical imperatives for the future of the industry..

The coming months will be decisive for shaping how the U.S. advances commercial drone integration. Balancing operational innovation with robust safety oversight, industry collaboration and practical implementation at scale will determine whether the drone industry will actually scale…or not.