Colorado Drone Mystery

[Duke]

"Not every drone owner can fly after dark. Drones can fly at night, however, with the proper waiver -- waiver 107.29 -- from the Federal Aviation Administration.

The FAA has given out a few thousand nighttime operation waivers. They're available to law enforcement and various businesses."

So either these drone operators have a waiver and the FAA isn't being forthright about it. Or no waiver has been issued and the operators are flying without FAA sanction. In any case, I think the FAA knows more than they are letting on. I'm also sticking with my original theory that this is some sort of training exercise. But who?

The waiver deal was what I was referring to in a previous post when I talking about the FAA running a paperwork exercise and calling it an investigation. If I were in charge of a serious investigation, the first step I'd take is a review of all the "few thousand" waivers issued and hopefully eliminate their holders one by one. Maybe start within a 100 mile radius of the area and work out.

It's unclear if the waivers are issued for individual drones, or if it is issued for a drone operator allowing night operations for any drone. Regardless of which it is, that would be the logical starting place, and would probably be enough, at least initially, to placate the Colorado senator who rattled the FAA's cage.

 

[Ultima Thule]

If I were in charge of a serious investigation, the first step I'd take is a review of all the "few thousand" waivers issued and hopefully eliminate their holders one by one. Maybe start within a 100 mile radius of the area and work out.

One would think that if the FAA has advanced beyond filing cabinets for their record keeping and have a real digital database that they could easily pare down that list in just a few minutes. These agencies also always seem to be wrapped in a political layer. Maybe that's the origin of the apparent foot dragging.

It's unclear if the waivers are issued for individual drones, or if it is issued for a drone operator allowing night operations for any drone.

I did a search for waiver 107.29 starting at the FAA site. Under 'Regulations and Policies -> Orders and Notices' there is a search form. The search phrase was 'Unmanned Aircraft Systems'. The source document is 8900.529 - Extended Unmanned Aircraft Systems Oversight. Searching through the associated PDF for anything related to waiver '107.29' took me to 'Section 7. Reference Documents'. The paragraph pointed me to the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations web site. From there I selected 'Title 14 - Aeronautics and Space'. Clicking on the range inclusive of 107 took me to 'Chapter I, Subchapter D'. Scrolling down I clicked on the Table of Contents link '107.1 - 107.205 for Small Unmanned Aerial System'. That goes to Subchapter F, Part 107. Under 'Subpart B - Operating Rules', there is a link to 107.29. The information is sparse. All it says is "No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft system during night." There is more detail on twilight operations. But that doesn't seem relevant here. So in answering your question, it appears that the policy is directed more to the operator and not the drone itself. But in any case, this is really not a waiver, just a rule. That's an error in the original local news article. Rather rule '107.29 - Daylight Operations' is subject to waiver. Scrolling down further on the preceding page to 'Subpart D - Waivers', there is a section entitled '107.200 - Waiver policy and requirements'. This is the most interesting part. It states:

"107.200 Waiver policy and requirements.
(a) The Administrator may issue a certificate of waiver authorizing a deviation from any regulation specified in §107.205 if the Administrator finds that a proposed small UAS operation can safely be conducted under the terms of that certificate of waiver.

(b) A request for a certificate of waiver must contain a complete description of the proposed operation and justification that establishes that the operation can safely be conducted under the terms of a certificate of waiver.

(c) The Administrator may prescribe additional limitations that the Administrator considers necessary.

(d) A person who receives a certificate of waiver issued under this section:

(1) May deviate from the regulations of this part to the extent specified in the certificate of waiver; and

(2) Must comply with any conditions or limitations that are specified in the certificate of waiver."

Section (b) is the most revealing. That tells me that if the FAA is true to its policies and if the mystery drone operators did indeed apply for and receive a waiver, then a "complete description of the proposed operation and justification" must exist.

 

[Debi]

A night investigating the mysterious drones in eastern Colorado

 

[Duke]

One would think that if the FAA has advanced beyond filing cabinets for their record keeping and have a real digital database that they could easily pare down that list in just a few minutes. These agencies also always seem to be wrapped in a political layer. Maybe that's the origin of the apparent foot dragging.



I did a search for waiver 107.29 starting at the FAA site. Under 'Regulations and Policies -> Orders and Notices' there is a search form. The search phrase was 'Unmanned Aircraft Systems'. The source document is 8900.529 - Extended Unmanned Aircraft Systems Oversight. Searching through the associated PDF for anything related to waiver '107.29' took me to 'Section 7. Reference Documents'. The paragraph pointed me to the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations web site. From there I selected 'Title 14 - Aeronautics and Space'. Clicking on the range inclusive of 107 took me to 'Chapter I, Subchapter D'. Scrolling down I clicked on the Table of Contents link '107.1 - 107.205 for Small Unmanned Aerial System'. That goes to Subchapter F, Part 107. Under 'Subpart B - Operating Rules', there is a link to 107.29. The information is sparse. All it says is "No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft system during night." There is more detail on twilight operations. But that doesn't seem relevant here. So in answering your question, it appears that the policy is directed more to the operator and not the drone itself. But in any case, this is really not a waiver, just a rule. That's an error in the original local news article. Rather rule '107.29 - Daylight Operations' is subject to waiver. Scrolling down further on the preceding page to 'Subpart D - Waivers', there is a section entitled '107.200 - Waiver policy and requirements'. This is the most interesting part. It states:

"107.200 Waiver policy and requirements.
(a) The Administrator may issue a certificate of waiver authorizing a deviation from any regulation specified in §107.205 if the Administrator finds that a proposed small UAS operation can safely be conducted under the terms of that certificate of waiver.

(b) A request for a certificate of waiver must contain a complete description of the proposed operation and justification that establishes that the operation can safely be conducted under the terms of a certificate of waiver.

(c) The Administrator may prescribe additional limitations that the Administrator considers necessary.

(d) A person who receives a certificate of waiver issued under this section:

(1) May deviate from the regulations of this part to the extent specified in the certificate of waiver; and

(2) Must comply with any conditions or limitations that are specified in the certificate of waiver."

Section (b) is the most revealing. That tells me that if the FAA is true to its policies and if the mystery drone operators did indeed apply for and receive a waiver, then a "complete description of the proposed operation and justification" must exist.

Even databases would not eliminate the need for some good, old fashioned gumshoe work on the part of the FAA and/or LE as they wade through those "few thousand," but yeah it's definitely the place to start and eliminate the proverbial "low hanging fruit."

Somewhere I would think there are design requirements and specifications that must be met for a drone to be flyable at night. Lighting requirements, for example. That's why I through perhaps individual drones were waived for night flight, but apparently not after your research. Maybe the "purpose and justification" bit is meant to ring out that level of detail.

From personal experience, aside from State, the FAA was the most political and bureaucratic of all the federal agencies I worked with. They had the frustrating tendency to quote regulations chapter and verse in answer to questions. They were "cookbook" types who didn't get paid to think, a checklist mentality. Organizationally they were matrixed out seemingly haphazardly, tough to track a clear line of authority/responsibly when you had to go "up the chain." Their org charts must have looked like a game of Pick Up Sticks.

 

[Ultima Thule]

Somewhere I would think there are design requirements and specifications that must be met for a drone to be flyable at night. Lighting requirements, for example. That's why I through perhaps individual drones were waived for night flight, but apparently not after your research. Maybe the "purpose and justification" bit is meant to ring out that level of detail.

There is more. But its limited. Section 107.29 - Daylight operation does outline lighting requirements for twilight operations, i.e. 30 minutes before sunrise and 30 minutes after sunset. But not for nighttime operations which are forbidden. Section 107.51 - Operating limitations for small unmanned aircraft outlines general operating constraints for drones in general. Section 107.205 - List of regulations subject to waiver is where it states that deviation from 107.29 - Daylight operation is subject to waiver. Another interesting item I overlooked before is 107.35 - Operation of multiple small unmanned aircraft. It states that a "A person may not operate or act as a remote pilot in command or visual observer in the operation of more than one unmanned aircraft at the same time." So not only are nighttime operations verboten but so is flying a drone swarm. But both are subject to waivers. I am also posting all these details so that they can be easily findable and verifiable by anyone else.

 

[Debi]

Keeping in mind that these people must know by now they are being looked for, they keep flying and hiding. That tends to concern me.

 

[Ultima Thule]

A night investigating the mysterious drones in eastern Colorado

There does appear to be some new information in this article.

"Gardner [US Senator from CO], whose hometown of Yuma has been in the thick of the drone activity, tweeted Friday that the FAA has boots on the ground and is "working with federal law enforcement to track down the operator.""

That should be an authoritative source. If the FAA has "boots on the ground", I take that to mean whoever is operating these drones is doing so without FAA sanction, i.e. without a waiver. It will also be interesting to know what "federal law enforcement" agency the FAA is working with.

"Sheriffs have said the drones arenʼt breaking Colorado law, but industry experts have said the drone operators could be violating FAA regulations on flying after dark and above a certain height."

107.29 - Daylight operation - Night operations are forbidden.

107.51 - Operating limitations - The altitude of the small unmanned aircraft cannot be higher than 400 feet above ground level, unless the small unmanned aircraft: (...see link for exceptions)

Might the answer be revealed soon?

 

[Duke]

There does appear to be some new information in this article.

"Gardner [US Senator from CO], whose hometown of Yuma has been in the thick of the drone activity, tweeted Friday that the FAA has boots on the ground and is "working with federal law enforcement to track down the operator.""

That should be an authoritative source. If the FAA has "boots on the ground", I take that to mean whoever is operating these drones is doing so without FAA sanction, i.e. without a waiver. It will also be interesting to know what "federal law enforcement" agency the FAA is working with.

Gardner was probably the key to getting the FAA off their butts. The guy is on Senate subcommittees that deal with both aviation and transportation safety. (The chair for the latter is Sen Fischer from neighboring Neb, where the drones have also shown up.) Continued inactivity on the part of FAA would have landed some high level bureaucrats in front of one, or both, of those subcommittees, with Gardner and others asking embarrassing questions.

 

[Debi]

Colorado drone mystery sightings finally might be solved

 

[Paintman]

Still a guess, but it's the best one I've heard so far.