The FAA Forgot About You in Part 108 — Speak Up by Oct 6!

So, you want to fly beyond visual line of sight, huh? Good timing. The FAA proposed new Part 108 rules in early August, and now they’re asking for comments. And yes, the proposal is about 650 pages long, and it’s definitely complicated. That’s why we made a 35-minute video that summarizes all of it. Watch it, then come back when you’re done. But if you’re a drone operator—commercial, recreational, in agriculture, cinematography, FPV, flying for a small business, or even a large business—this video is for you. Because the current proposal leaves out the very people who have been flying BVLOS safely for years: operators like you and me. That’s why a coalition of industry groups—namely Pilot Institute, Influential Drones, Drone Service Provider Alliance, the Drone Advisory Council, the FPV Freedom Coalition, and Flite Test—have come together to submit a counterproposal. And this one includes you. In this video, I’ll walk you through exactly what we’re proposing, why it matters to you, and how you can make your voice heard and amplify the message before the comment deadline of October 6. Let’s get to it.

Why a new BVLOS pathway

Why a new proposal? As currently written, the FAA’s Part 108 focuses heavily on automation and airworthiness approval—specifically on fully autonomous BVLOS flights. That’s important for the future, no doubt, but it ignores a huge group of pilots already operating safely with BVLOS waivers under Part 107. Quick clarity: NPRM means Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and BVLOS means Beyond Visual Line of Sight—that’s the terminology for the rest of the video. Our proposal adds a pathway for low-risk, non-autonomous BVLOS operations—the key part that’s missing right now. Think of it this way: the FAA has done this before. Flying at night and flying over people started with waivers under Part 107; once safety was proven, they were codified into regulation. We want to follow that same proven model for BVLOS. Best of all, this option is ready to go almost immediately after rulemaking—whether that’s 6, 8, or 12 months—because the building blocks already exist under Part 107. We propose this could be added to Part 107 as a new subpart, live in Part 108 as a new subpart, or even be its own Part 109. The FAA will figure out where it belongs. To be clear, we’re not proposing to remove the current Part 108 proposal; we want to keep it largely as-is, with a few modifications I’ll discuss at the end.

Human-in-the-loop, low-risk ops

So what does this look like? The first key concept is “human in the loop.” Unlike the current proposal, our operations require a certificated Remote Pilot in Command (RPIC) responsible for the flight. Second, “low-risk, non-autonomous” flights. This means manually controlled flights with a standard controller (like most flights), or using simple pre-programmed routes—think autopilot in manned aviation, like mapping missions. We don’t want the Simplified User Interface (SUI) as proposed for full autonomy; there must always be a pilot in the loop. We identify three distinct categories of low-risk operations, each with slightly different requirements: Extended Visual Line of Sight (EVLOS), agricultural operations, and shielded operations. Because of this human-in-the-loop framework, there’s no need for airworthiness acceptance as proposed for fully autonomous missions. With our proposal, you can use your current drone, which is great.

BVLOS rating under Part 107

Unlike the current proposal, which doesn’t include FAA certification for the operator, we propose a new BVLOS non-autonomous rating as an add-on to the Part 107 certificate. Why? Because Part 107 is already structured for low-risk operations—that’s why BVLOS waivers have worked for years. There’s no need for a new operator certificate; a rating means additional training and testing. Topics include regulations, shielded operations, safe distance criteria, and aircraft-specific training. The FAA already has a list of topics—let’s use it. The knowledge test would be 40–60 questions at a PSI testing center, just like the Part 107 initial exam. For currency, keep your Part 107 current and renew the BVLOS rating every 24 calendar months. Currency training would be free on the FAA Safety website, modeled after the current method, with industry-provided courses available for approval to keep things modern and flexible.

Large UAS rating

One of the big pluses in the current proposal is the ability to fly drones over 55 lbs, which Part 107 currently limits. What do we do with that? The FAA has learned a lot from 49 USC 44807 exemptions. We propose a Large UAS rating (likely housed in Part 107—the FAA can decide). Operators have safely flown well over 55 lbs under exemptions. This rating would codify the proven pathway without forcing operators into the full complexity of fully autonomous Part 108. Remember: this entire proposal is about manual operations. Want to fly a drone BVLOS manually? Get Part 107, add a Large UAS rating, add a BVLOS rating—you’re good to go. This mirrors manned aviation: to fly a multi-engine aircraft or a jet, get a commercial certificate, add an instrument rating, then a type rating for the large aircraft. It’s worked for 100 years; let’s use it again.

Training and personnel

Training matters. The FAA’s current proposal requires flight coordinators to have 5 hours on the platform they supervise. We think manual BVLOS pilots should have more: 10 hours of operating experience on each platform flown BVLOS. These don’t all need to be BVLOS hours—in fact, they shouldn’t be. Build experience within VLOS for 10 hours first. Training should include ground and flight training covering normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures, plus BVLOS procedures. Since we include the option to use Visual Observers (VOs), they should also be trained in airspace awareness, communication, and detect-and-avoid responsibilities. The RPIC could provide this training or use third-party training.

On personnel, we keep it simple. Our operations are simple, low-risk, so there’s no need for an operations supervisor or flight coordinator. The only required role is the Remote Pilot in Command, just like Part 107. Visual Observers are optional, used when the mission calls for it, minimizing bureaucracy while keeping accountability clear. As for the aircraft: since these are low-risk, human-controlled operations, aircraft would not need new Part 108 airworthiness acceptance or noise certification. These are the same aircraft currently used under Part 107. Keep it simple. For most operations, the familiar 55 lb limit applies unless you hold the Large UAS rating.

Operating rules and ADS-B In

How do operations work? Most operational rules stay the same as Part 107. Anti-collision lighting for twilight and night. No careless or reckless operations. Right-of-way rules: always yield to manned aircraft. No ADS-B Out or transponder in transmit mode at low altitude to avoid channel saturation—same as Part 107. Weather minimums: 3 miles visibility, measured from the RPIC and any VO. One pilot per aircraft unless you have a waiver. We request one additional feature: ADS-B In for situational awareness. It doesn’t have to be onboard; a ground-based solution or even an app works.

EVLOS, agriculture, shielded ops

Now, the three operations: EVLOS, agricultural, and shielded. Starting with EVLOS: think of it as a stepping stone between VLOS and fully autonomous BVLOS. This isn’t novel; Canada does something similar. Under our proposal: up to 0.5 miles from the pilot requires no VO and no DAA, but you must have command of the airspace—0.5 miles may be slightly beyond VLOS. From 0.5 to 2 miles, use either a VO or a ground-based detect-and-avoid (DAA) system. Daisy-chaining VOs would be allowed. Beyond 2 miles is possible if using a ground-based DAA within the manufacturer’s validated range. Two miles is plenty for most operations; this has been done safely under waivers nationwide. Let’s democratize this approach.

Agricultural operations are among the lowest risk in aviation. They occur at very low altitudes, typically under 50 ft. They’re in rural, sparsely populated areas. There’s almost no chance of conflict with manned crop dusters because farmers won’t hire a drone and an airplane for the same field at the same time to do the same job—and if they do, they coordinate. Because of this, requiring expensive DAA doesn’t make sense. Safety is achieved through altitude and command-and-control limits: 50 ft max unless waived, and maximum distance limited by the manufacturer’s C2 range. In practice, aircraft will hit battery limits or field boundaries before range limits. Low risk.

Shielded operations were lightly mentioned in the proposal, but we think they need to be strengthened for low-risk, non-autonomous missions. Shielded operations mean flying within 200 ft of a structure, tree line, or terrain—areas where manned aircraft don’t normally fly. Yes, some manned aircraft will be there; that’s why we require ADS-B In. A key component: the FAA should prioritize approving portable conspicuity devices—electronic conspicuity (EC)—which broadcast position like ADS-B without being ADS-B. Companies like uAvionix already have solutions tested successfully in the UK. The more airspace users are visible to each other, the better they can avoid conflicts. This lets balloons, gliders, skydivers, paramotors, and other aircraft without electrical systems become visible. Balloons can’t maneuver away from a 100-mph delivery drone; it’s unreasonable to expect them to. If the FAA is serious, it should consider subsidizing these devices, just like we asked for Remote ID modules. Shielded operations are recognized internationally, including in New Zealand and ICAO discussions. New Zealand allows up to 100 m (328 ft). The BVLOS ARC proposed 100 ft. We propose 200 ft but would support 100 ft; there needs to be a viable option. Maintain flexibility by keeping altitude waivable if justified. We also propose requiring a NOTAM if operating beyond 1 mile from the takeoff point to improve awareness for manned aviation. Maximum distance should be limited by the manufacturer’s validated C2 range. This provides natural safety separation without unnecessary costs baked into the current proposal.

Deconfliction and documentation

On strategic deconfliction: the draft Part 108 requires UTM and deconfliction services, which makes sense for fully autonomous drones. For low-risk non-autonomous flights, that’s overkill. The RPIC remains responsible. No extra services needed. Conformance monitoring by the RPIC—check. Strategic deconfliction by the RPIC, VO, ground-based DAA, or using ADS-B In—this is how it’s done today; let’s continue safely. No need for UTM yet for this type of operation. UTM can be developed over time so those who need it can use it, without delaying low-risk operations.

Required documentation: operators should have an operations manual with BVLOS procedures as the bare minimum. Requiring a full airline-style Safety Management System (SMS) is disproportionate. The FAA should work on a UAS-tailored SMS for the future; for now, an operations manual is sufficient. For cybersecurity, if using cloud services or networks, follow risk-scaled policies—keep it proportional.

TSA, reporting, duty and rest

TSA and data reporting: the NPRM includes heavy requirements—some make sense, some don’t. Since these low-risk, non-autonomous operations mirror Part 107, there should be no TSA threat assessment and no additional data reporting. Proposed 108.40 and 108.45 are designed for large-scale, fully autonomous operations; for us, they’re duplicative and burdensome.

Duty and rest: simple, common-sense limits—10 hours maximum duty day, 8 hours maximum flight time per day, 50 hours maximum duty per week, 10 hours minimum rest before duty, and one full rest day per week. This ensures safety without overcomplication.

Autonomous BVLOS positions

That’s our counterproposal to create a safe, scalable, immediately usable path for BVLOS operations that keeps the human in the loop for low-risk use cases. It builds directly on the proven Part 107 framework, protects current operators from disruption, and avoids unnecessary costs tied to airworthiness approval and heavy automation. This is about ensuring that the community of real-world operators isn’t left out of the future of BVLOS.

Now, a quick word on fully autonomous BVLOS operations, where no human is flying—different risk, different tools. First, an easy win: the FAA’s proposal to prohibit assault, threat, intimidation, or interference with UAS crews is excellent. Those protections exist for crewed aviation and are long overdue for drone crews. This gives law enforcement a clear federal basis for action. We support it and encourage a strong public outreach so everyone understands these protections apply wherever UAS operations happen. Next, we oppose giving the TSA open-ended authority to impose security requirements outside normal rulemaking. That bypasses transparency and stakeholder input. Security rules should be risk-based, proportionate, and publicly vetted. If an urgent threat arises, the TSA already has emergency tools and can coordinate with the FAA. Standing unilateral authority isn’t appropriate.

Reporting requirements: fully autonomous operations merit more oversight, but always-on, high-volume reporting goes too far. It scales costs by flight count, not risk, and buries both operators and the FAA in low-value data. Instead, operators should report incidents, anomalies, and safety-relevant performance only. Keep routine operational data with the operator unless requested. Follow Canada’s manufacturer-centric model: operators report incidents to the manufacturer, and the manufacturer submits a single annual safety report to the FAA. That yields actionable trends with minimal duplication. Also leverage NASA’s ASRS as a voluntary, confidential channel for high-value safety insights without punishment. Focus on meaningful safety signals, not noise.

Registration: requiring autonomous UAS to register under Part 47 (like manned aircraft) adds paperwork and won’t scale. It risks exhausting N-number supply and triggers state-level fees tied to N-numbers, creating unintended costs with no safety payoff. For example, Arizona requires additional aircraft registration. Unmanned aircraft in Parts 107 and 108 should remain under Part 48 registration.

Spectrum: for Category 2 population densities (low density), the proposal would require C2 links on new spectrum—not 2.4/5.8 GHz. But 2.4/5.8 GHz has proven reliable under Part 107, including for BVLOS. If interference occurs, RTH/failsafe brings the aircraft home; it doesn’t fall out of the sky. Save licensed aviation-grade spectrum for higher-risk operations (Category 4 and 5), and only after a risk-based operator assessment.

LAANC: please preserve LAANC for efficient access near airports, and continue to allow prior ATC coordination to fly above grid altitudes when safe. These tools enable legitimate missions without unlimited paperwork. The proposed rewrite to 107.41 is unclear and suggests LAANC could change drastically—we do not want that. Keep LAANC as-is.

Recreational pilots: the recreational BVLOS section adds equipment standards, category limits, and heavy reporting—so burdensome that almost no one will use it, especially for fully autonomous BVLOS, which isn’t really the point of recreational flying. Recreational pilots—1.5 million of them—are the pipeline for tomorrow’s pilots, A&Ps, engineers, and programmers. The FAA should include non-autonomous, low-risk BVLOS for recreational pilots. Options include an exemption pathway allowing manual control, removing heavy reporting, strategic deconfliction, performance monitoring, and airworthiness acceptance. Require reasonable training/testing on airspace and equipment. CBOs could lead by hosting recreational BVLOS flights inside FRIAs, or by allowing recreational pilots into EVLOS or shielded operations with a few tweaks. This would require changes to 49 USC 44809—let’s get it done.

Area approvals: requiring FAA review for every area turns this into a waiver process again. Instead, the FAA should publish objective criteria so operators can self-assess and comply without individualized approval. The FAA has years of BVLOS waiver data—codify proven mitigations, just like we did for night ops and operations over people. That’s how we scale.

UTM and automated data service providers: as proposed, the system is complex and could take years. IBM and Parsons are already leading FAA air traffic modernization with a target of 2028 after several years of work. It’s hard to see this proposal happening in less than 5–10 years. Instead, the FAA should provide data showing why UTM must be mandatory in all airspace. International experience suggests a safer, phased approach. Transport Canada allows low-risk BVLOS without UTM while building the system. This lets low-risk BVLOS move forward while UTM matures in parallel. The U.S. should follow a similar approach.

How to submit comments

If this resonates, submit a comment to the FAA—in your own words. Comments matter, especially on low-risk, non-autonomous BVLOS provisions that will shape real-world scaling. Silence today could lock the final rule for a decade. Time to speak up. There’s about a month from when this video goes live—about three weeks, actually—to ensure inclusion in the future of BVLOS.

How to comment: First, draft the comment. Be polite—impolite comments get discarded. Agree where things are good; that matters when others disagree. Disagree with solutions. Explain how this affects you and your business. Do not copy-paste someone else’s comment; duplicates are counted as one. Use others’ points as inspiration, but make them your own. We’ll provide a downloadable document with bullet points summarizing the key items in this video. Remove what you don’t support, add your own, tweak it, make it yours. Consider using AI to help draft a clean response—we’ll provide a suggested prompt. It’s a draft, so read it and ensure you agree with it.

Next, submit it. Go to the Federal Register and search for the docket number FAA-2025-1908. Verify you’re in the right place, click Public Comments on the left, then Submit a Comment. You’ll be redirected to Regulations.gov to submit. If the comment is long, create a PDF and attach it; if short, paste it directly. The deadline is October 6, 2025.

We need as many voices as possible so the FAA understands that this pathway is critical for small businesses, farmers, cinematographers, recreational pilots, and everyone who wants to fly beyond visual line of sight. There should be 100,000 comments. We had 50,000 for Remote ID—there’s no reason we can’t double that. Passing the baton now. It’s your turn.