Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Managing and Engaging Stakeholders on UAS in the Vicinity of Airports Â 66 6 Case Studies Given the organizational experiences, tools, and UAS-specific engagement methods detailed in previous sections, the subsequent step in this research was to examine these methods on specific stakeholder outreach case studies. This section features results from subject matter expert interviews and specific communication strategy analyses. Example Perspectives The following represent example airports that were used to convey commonality and unique aspects of case analyses guidance for each of the outlined scenarios (from SME Interview subject perspectives). ï· A Non-primary General Aviation Airport, administrated by a municipal (county) government organization, represents a rural region with a large general aviation population (150 hangers; flight training and pleasure) with frequent use by commercial airlines (three flights per day), service providers (agricultural; one flight per day), and business aviation; presence of general aviation, agricultural, and small to large jet aircraft); a large local agricultural industry; and 400,000 residents in the surrounding area; located in Class D and G airspace. ï· A Primary Commercial Service Medium Hub Airport, administrated by a multi-stakeholder municipal government organization, represents a suburban region with frequent use by large general aviation population (200 hangers; flight training and pleasure), commercial airlines (more than 1.3 million annual passengers), cargo, and business aviation; presence of general aviation and small to large jet aircraft; a large local manufacturing industry; a local U.S. Air Force base; and 600,000 residents in the surrounding area; located in Class B and C airspace. ï· A Primary Commercial Service Large Hub Airport, administrated by a municipal (city) government organization, represents a dense urban metropolitan region with frequent use by commercial airlines, cargo, and business aviation (1,600 flights per day and more than 50+ million annual passengers); presence of local general aviation, cargo, and small to large jet aircraft; a large local manufacturing industry; and approximately four-million residents in the surrounding area; located in Class B airspace. Case Analysis Scenarios The following represent three unique case analysis scenarios, directly related to topics and materials presented in Topic A. Each features the definition of a scenario; identification of problem (issue) origin and contributing factors; effect on airport; responsibility for addressing issue; alternative actions to consider; and guidance to specifically address the issue. A series of further related observations, gathered from the SME interviews, are also presented.
Managing and Engaging Stakeholders on UAS in the Vicinity of Airports Â 67 6.2.1 Scenario 1: Obtaining Operational Approval Scenario Description: A remote pilot wants to operate a UAS near an airport and contacts the airport to ask for information about how to do so. Why does the problem exist? Primary Issue: Inconsistent UAS operator-airport communication inhibits support for responsible and effective use of the technology; the UAS remote pilot/operator is unsure of the specifics necessary to secure approval or is seeking specific advice regarding conducting permissible operations within close proximity to the airport. Contributing Factors ï· Differences in administration, community, available resources, experience, perception, and exposure to other engagement methods or tools. ï· Each type of airport serves a unique community with a multitude of economic, socio- political, and physical factors affecting their decision making. ï· Must know audience; dictates how and what is shared to achieve desired outcome. ï· Inexperience with the technology and its application, including regulatory requirements (federal, state, and local), best practices, capabilities/limitations, and applications. ï· Lack of UAS specific education; general unawareness of how/why the technology can be beneficial and the controls in place to ensure maintenance of safety and protection of privacy, as well as procedures for securing appropriate certification and applicable waiver(s). ï· Not being able to contact the right person at the airport, i.e. a designated airport UAS person or champion; help is not immediate or responsive enough to maintain interest. How does the problem affect airports? ï· Occurrence of mishap, accident, or improper handling of request may impact level of support, including resources (e.g., personnel, infrastructure, time, and training). ï· Lack of clear, consistent, and accurate communication can lead to misinterpretation, distrust, and loss of support (e.g., funding, local leadership buy-in, general public action); delay in response may be perceived as lack of care, interest, or support by the airport operator, which may promulgate increased impermissible operations. ï· Failure to address could lead to operation in disregard for regulatory requirements and creation of a safety and security risk. ï· Establishes a learning opportunity to develop or clarify a supporting UAS operational policy. Who is responsible for addressing this issue? ï· Airport operators (administration/management and local government; primary) ï· Federal Aviation Administration (primary) ï· UAS Remote Pilot (primary)
Managing and Engaging Stakeholders on UAS in the Vicinity of Airports Â 68 ï· State-level DOT (contributor) ï· Original Equipment Manufacturer (contributor) ï· Training/ Education Provider (contributor) ï· Advocacy Organizations (contributor) NOTE: Where possible, primary responsibility holders have been delineated from those able to contribute to address of the specified issue. Primary indicates the âagent of change,â while âcontributor:â is reflective of a stakeholder or community member with the ability to support the necessary change to implement a solution or solve the issue. Alternative Actions The following represent alternative actions that could be considered or conducted to address the specified issue: ï· Utilize a common list or repository of UAS operational criteria, best practices, and guidance materials that can be shared with the public, including specific operators seeking clarification or further information (see Section 7). ï· Designate an airport representative to serve as a common UAS point of contact for all inquiries (internal and external); given frequency and scope of requests, consider the creation of a UAS-specific airport safety review board to review operational proposals. ï· Establish standardized procedures for UAS flight requests and educate airport staff and local ATC on UAS regulations, procedures, and the new standardized method. Standardization can help establish trust between the UAS remote pilot/operator and the airport; remote pilots requesting to fly will be assured how to contact the airport and what type of information needs to be provided. Without standardization, there can be confusion and mistakes made that could lead to an incident, mishap, or accident. ï· Tailor outreach tools towards the specific community (Table 1). This could include community educational seminars, email, social media, local media outlets and websites. This section can assist in evaluating different types of outreach tools. SME 5 (Executive Director, Non-primary General Aviation Airport) tailors outreach tools to an older, rural agricultural community by using minimal social media, keeping local media involved, and using a text messaging system. SME 10 (Airport operator at Non-primary: Reliever Airport) uses face-to- face and telephone contact due to primary customer preference. Guidance Based on the request, the first aspect to consider and determine is what type of UAS remote pilot the individual represents; a recreational user, Part 107 remote pilot, or public remote pilot (i.e., government agency representative). Evaluate the request to determine next steps. The type of airspace present will determine specific requirements governing the use of UAS at or near the airport. If the airspace is classified as âuncontrolledâ (Class G), then Part 107 rules are in effect; however, if the operation is to occur in permissible âcontrolledâ airspace (Class B-D and surface area E), then FAA review and approval is necessary through designated mechanisms such as the Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC) system or the FAA Drone Zone Portal. Further operational review and approval may be necessary, given the type of operation to be conducted; e.g. night flight, over people, from a moving vehicle (not in sparsely populated
Managing and Engaging Stakeholders on UAS in the Vicinity of Airports Â 69 areas), multiple aircraft operation with a single remote pilot, beyond visual line of sight, and above 400 feet above ground level (AGL). NOTE: Class A airspace generally starts at 18,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) and is not reflective a typical UAS operations near or within proximity to an airport. As identified in the alternative actions, there are several potential strategies that could be employed to address this specific issue (i.e., remote pilot seeking further guidance). Each of these options provides a potential solution however, in many cases, their implementation may be dependent on several factors, such as availability of resources (e.g., time, financial, and materials), airport operator UAS subject matter expertise (e.g., familiarity with regulations), and level of public interest. In a base condition, where availability of resources, staff, and or expertise is low or non-existent, the airport operator (or other primary responsibility holder) could direct the public, including the individual UAS remote pilot, to the list of UAS-specific materials in Section 7.1 of this document. Additionally, developing a list of consultable contacts, including those with the FAA (e.g., local Flight Standards District Office [FSDO]), state-level DOT, airport tenants (commercial air carriers and other service providers), original equipment manufacturers, training/education providers, advocacy and national community based organizations, local law enforcement, and local aviation operators (UAS remote pilots, general and commercial pilots and operators, and other aviation operational facilities), could provide the airport with avenues to further identify, investigate, and address future challenges. Given availability of more resources, the following approach could be considered, in addition to base guidance: ï· Designate a single point of contact (e.g., UAS Operations Representative) to manage incoming inquiries and requests ï· Adapt and share UAS-specific resources with the targeted population using various publicly accessible mediums: websites, social media, online or face-to-face briefings, and brochures ï· Establish a standardized advisement mechanism, to channel incoming requests to the UAS point of contact, document interactions, and ensure consistency in the management of requests For those situations where a substantial degree of resources and support are made available, the following could also be considered: ï· Develop or adapt UAS resources into educational materials and provide formal delivery at prescheduled events, in partnership with the FAA, state-level DOT, local law enforcement, original equipment manufacturers, training/ education providers, and advocacy or community-based organizations ï· Establish a UAS-specific airport safety review board, featuring representation from the airport, FAA, state-level DOT, local law enforcement, UAS SMEs, and applicable advocacy organizations or other stakeholders ï· Join and collaboratively contribute expertise and experience towards applicable partnerships or create a local partnership to address unique challenges, affecting the airport and operational aviation community Further guidance, from the perspectives of the three example airports, as follows: ï· Non-primary General Aviation Airport:
Managing and Engaging Stakeholders on UAS in the Vicinity of Airports Â 70 o Reduced potential need for safety review board, given lower volume/traffic and staff available o UAS operational review and approval through FAA mechanisms (e.g., LAANC or FAA Drone Zone) is necessary, given presence of Class D airspace (surface to 2,500 feet MSL) o Outreach methodologies need to address the generation aviation community featuring smaller aircraft operations and their subsequent higher frequency at these types of airports. Such airports usually feature low altitude training activities (e.g., terrain clearance tasks; âtouch and go,â no-flap, and rejected landings; pattern work; and abort training exercises). This, combined with some commercial operations, will require a broader outreach to the community and to UAS remote pilots/operators. Such outreach should include education on the type of typical GA operations at an airport communicating specifics of local traffic patterns, the difference between airspace types (and allowances under each), and the requirements for the use of UAS operations within the vicinity of the airport. ï· Primary Commercial Service Medium Hub Airport: o Increased potential need for a safety review board, given volume/traffic and staff available o UAS operational review and approval through FAA mechanisms (e.g., LAANC) is necessary, given presence of Class B (surface to 10,000 feet MSL) and C airspace (surface to 2,500 feet MSL) o As airspace extends out further for these types of airports, the airspace layout and configuration is an important aspect for consideration and education of operation limitations. Outreach to the community needs to expand into the correct regions for this airportâs locale. As these types of airports are usually closer to cities and more urbanized areas, outreach will require a more detailed review of potential UAS user groups and types of UAS operations. Although these airports have less commercial carrier operations than a large hub, medium hub airports typically feature growth; master plan demand forecasts and accurate planning for future operations and potential areas of UAS risk must be ascertained ï· Primary Commercial Service Large Hub Airport: o Highest exhibited need for a safety review board, given greater volume/traffic and staff available o UAS operational review and approval through FAA mechanisms (e.g., LAANC) is necessary, given presence of Class B airspace o The surrounding areas of such large and complex airports are usually close to a major city or metropolitan area. The airport must use its higher capacity to maximize outreach efforts as the large amount of operations represents the highest risks for UAS interference with airport operations.
Managing and Engaging Stakeholders on UAS in the Vicinity of Airports Â 71 Notable S/SME Observations The following represent notable observations from the S/SME Interviews, applicable to this scenario: ï· Population sometimes resists change, need support to address concerns, while achieving critical inertia to make appropriate changes to support safety and economic benefit; ï· General public has numerous preconceived notions of UAS, ranging from privacy concerns to safety; how can an airport effectively communicate intent, while alleviating concerns? ï· Following regulatory compliance of FARs, COA, and LOA provide the widest and most accurate dissemination; non-professionals do not use FAA communication/briefing/approval mechanisms (e.g., AWAS, NOTAMs, WX Briefing, LAAC) and are more apt to violate rules ï· Foster partnerships with local government, and advocacy organizations ï· Many requests for information received from the public tend to relate specifically with âhow can we do this [operate UAS] safely?â or âhow do I get my license?â ï· Not contacted as frequently as in the past; tower manager has become much more accessible, frequently meeting with local groups. Part 107 UAS pilots are becoming more sophisticated and more familiar with LAANC; they are very respectful of manned activity. Had more than 900 LAANC requests; in support of construction, media, and other local operations, which are becoming more common place. ï· Public is requesting permission from the wrong contacts, due to confliction written into regulations and advisory materials (e.g., hobbyists vs Part 107 need to coordinate, compared to obtaining approval) ï· Start by making sure people know the door is open to help them understand; make aware that you are an available resource. ï· Have a thorough understanding of local traffic pattern, including low level helicopters. ï· Do not be afraid of doing research on regulations; understand what constraints are and where you have influence/power. When you understand, you can confidently speak with drone users and other members of the community. Make something graphical to explain your concern clearly; need to be willing to get out there and engage. ï· There is a greater understanding of UAS place within the NAS; help explain where they are at and how they are treated by FAA ï· Part 107 UAS pilots are very respective of operating in class D airspace 6.2.2 Scenario 2: Illegal Commercial UAS Activity In-proximity to Airport Scenario Description: A recreational UAS remote pilot is inappropriately conducting commercial operations within close proximity to the airport, unaware of rules and requirements governing such operations (i.e., need for Part 107 certification to conduct commercial UAS activity).
Managing and Engaging Stakeholders on UAS in the Vicinity of Airports Â 72 Why does the problem exist? Primary Issue: Safety in the National Airspace System is directly affected by local communication and support, including awareness of regulations governing the applicable use of UAS; potential for occurrence of airspace conflict between recreational UAS and manned aircraft traffic, as well as operation in direct violation of operational requirements. Contributing Factors ï· UAS operations are primarily occurring at the local level; within visual line of sight (VLOS). ï· Airports represent the highest concentration of manned aircraft traffic in potential conflict with UAS operations (below 400 feet above ground level [AGL]). ï· Recreational and civil UAS operators continue to rapidly grow; civil UAS operator knowledge is confirmed through Part 107 examination and certification, public UAS certification is confirmed through internal mechanisms, while recreational is subject to registration and community-based organization rule compliance. ï· Wide availability and affordability of UAS, coupled with lack of UAS specific education in the recreational market. ï· New uses for UAS are constantly occurring, e.g., firefighting, commercial goods delivery, and insurance inspection. How does the problem affect airports? ï· Increased potential for mishap/accident/conflict due to higher congestion in close proximity to airport. ï· Airport personnel are local area aviation subject matter experts; called on to identify/address issues and mitigate public concerns; must contend with public perception and public relations for any aviation issues and typically provide guidance to address related issues. ï· Such activities reinforce negative perceptions surrounding UAS activity. Who is responsible for addressing this issue? ï· Airport personnel are local area aviation subject matter experts; know FAA requirements, local terrain and conditions; have existing pathways to communicate with local populace (general public, civic leaders, aviation professionals, and recreational users; primary) ï· FAA (primary) ï· National Community-based Organization (primary) ï· State and local law enforcement (primary) ï· Individual recreational UAS remote pilot (primary) ï· State-level DOT (contributor) ï· Original Equipment Manufacturer (contributor)
Managing and Engaging Stakeholders on UAS in the Vicinity of Airports Â 73 ï· Local UAS operators/clubs/organizations; professional, public, and recreational (contributor) ï· Local media (contributor) ï· Local UAS reseller/vendor (contributor) Alternative Actions The following represent alternative actions that could be considered or conducted to address the specified problem: ï· Under no circumstances should Airport Operators attempt to take control of the UAS or they risk assuming liability (further information is available through the link to Law Enforcement engagement with Suspected Unauthorized UAS Operations: https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/law_enforcement/) ï· There are several options that can be used to report suspected unauthorized use of UAS within the vicinity of an airport. These methods should be used for any suspicious, illegal, or unsanctioned operations creating unsafe conditions within the NAS or in violation of State/local laws and ordinances. o FAA Hotline Reporting Form: https://hotline.faa.gov/ o Contact local Flight Standards District Office (FSDO): https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/fsdo/ o Contact State/local law enforcement (if state laws governing use of UAS/aircraft or operational personnel, including trespass, privacy, and/or operation of a vehicle; e.g., Florida State Statute 860.13, Operation of aircraft while intoxicated or in a careless or reckless manner; 2017); reference Law Enforcement engagement with Suspected Unauthorized UAS Operations (FAA 2016c; https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/law_enforcement/) in reporting ï· SME 4, a representative from a Primary commercial service: large hub airport, works with local law enforcement to try and prevent unauthorized UAS activity. ï· Preventative and Deterrence methods can be placed on the property. This can include examples, such as signs depicting âno dronesâ with further contact information. Signage can also be placed in surrounding neighborhoods that fall within the five-mile surround of the airport (FAA No Drone Zone signage examples: https://www.faa.gov/uas/where_to_fly/no_drone_zone/). It is essential that Federal, state, and local laws governing the prohibition of UAS be fully reviewed before implementing a âNo Drone Zone.â ï· Hosting a local campaign for education or educational seminars can help inform the public on proper UAS uses and the legality of operations. SME 2 (Director of Aviation Services, US DOI) is responsible for a UAS-related outreach campaign (âDrones for Goodâ) that proactively educates the public; SME 9 (Airport Operator of Primary Commercial Service: Medium Hub Airport) host 10 air service 101 events a year to help educate the community.
Managing and Engaging Stakeholders on UAS in the Vicinity of Airports Â 74 ï· Promote hobby groups that practice safe and responsible flight. SME 7 (Executive Director, Primary Commercial Service: Non-hub Airport) discusses community engagement with hobbyist and emphasizes importance of being involved in user groups. Guidance This scenario represents a case where a recreational pilot is inappropriately and illegally conducting commercial operations, without appropriate certification (Part 107 or under a public entityâs training and certification) and in possibly without applicable approvals (if in Class B-E airspace). Illegal UAS operations are most related to the purview and involvement of law enforcement agencies (Federal, state, and local levels). Education on what is considered legal versus illegal must be clear and concise in any outreach documentation or efforts. The methodology for the use of law enforcement depends on the type of airport and must be planned for accordingly based on available resources, geographical reach, law enforcement capabilities in the area, and overall applicability of the laws in place. As with the past example, a hybrid approach incorporating the five major options identified under alternative actions could be considered, based on available resources of the primary responsibility holders including the airport operator, FAA representatives, the national CBO (AMA), and state and local law enforcement. As the pilot in command, the UAS remote pilot is responsible for their actions, even if unaware of the laws and regulations governing use; however, the primary responsibility holders, in conjunction with and support from potential contributors (e.g., state-level DOTs, OEMs, local operators/clubs/organizations, media, and resellers/vendors) could use this as a catalyst moment to establish a concerted effort to engage in outreach and education, among their community. Further guidance, from the perspectives of the three example airports, as follows: ï· Non-primary General Aviation Airport: o UAS operational review and approval through FAA mechanisms (e.g., LAANC or FAA Drone Zone) is necessary, given presence of Class D airspace. o For these types of airports, due to their respective size and location (based on smaller and/or remote communities), coordination with local law enforcement is key. Although such airports have security plans in place, the vigilance level in the immediate vicinity of such an airport may be less; for UAS illegal activity, the airport could also collaborate with nearby airport located citizens for reporting suspect activity. o Training on UAS activity with local law enforcement is encouraged so that the understanding of the rules and regulations is known to all parties (in accordance with federal, state, and local laws) and that proper enforcement can occur. ï· Primary Commercial Service Medium Hub Airport: o Significant higher risk potential due to airspace classification (B & C) and volume of traffic o UAS operational review and approval through FAA mechanisms (e.g., LAANC) is necessary, given presence of Class B and C airspace o These types of airports may have their own security personnel or airport police that should be able to enforce suspect UAS activity. These departments within airports could coordinate with airport management on a joint-program to educate the public
Managing and Engaging Stakeholders on UAS in the Vicinity of Airports Â 75 and also outline who is responsible for enforcement within the overall airport organization structure. Medium hub airports may also have to rely more on their local law enforcement, if the airport is near a major city where UAS activity is more likely to occur. o As these airports have higher volumes of air traffic and therefore usually have a higher controller workload with subsequent higher vigilance requirements, airspace de-confliction is a key element of ensuring UAS activity compliance. Use of technologies to detect or prevent illegal UAS activity (e.g., counter UAS technology) may be a beneficial future element to consider. ï· Primary Commercial Service Large Hub Airport: o Significant higher risk potential due to airspace classification (B) and volume of traffic. o UAS operational review and approval through FAA mechanisms (e.g., LAANC) is necessary, given presence of Class B airspace. o Large hub airports (i.e. LAX and DCA) typically have an internal airport police force that will require coordination with on airport UAS strategy to prevent or address illegal UAS activity. Coordination with local law enforcement is also recommended as such airports are also usually near larger metropolitan areas and the geographical reach is thus further from the airport. In addition, some high-risk airports where terrorist activities have a higher likelihood of occurring, may warrant further coordination with State or Federal law enforcement agencies. as t o Given the higher volumes of air traffic at such airports and the higher controller workload with subsequent increased vigilance requirements, airspace de-confliction is a key element to ensuring UAS activity compliance. Use of technologies to detect or prevent illegal UAS activity (e.g., counter UAS technology) may be a beneficial future element to consider. Notable Observations The following represent notable observations from the S/SME Interviews, applicable to this scenario: ï· Recreational UAS operators can be unaware of requirements, provisions, and best practices relating to UAS operations, including training, certification, and applicability; there are instances of recreational users conducting civil/commercial operations. ï· Ensuring de-confliction/coordination of airspace, especially among hobbyists, civil, and public (including military); identify examples of how to achieve and maintain. ï· Situational awareness of terrain; need to ensure appropriate safety checks and resources (e.g., accurate maps, local contacts, and current checklists and documentation) are available to operators. ï· Traffic/congestion in populous areas. ï· Understanding FAA/State/local policies and routinely communicating to effected parties.
Managing and Engaging Stakeholders on UAS in the Vicinity of Airports Â 76 ï· Overcome resistance to change; especially from those satisfied with keeping things the same (i.e., need to overcome static reluctance). ï· Recommend airports communicate a policy/brief description of local airspace with link to FAA facility map; do not be silent (perception âif nothing is said, it must be legalâ); if able to reach the lowest common denominator, it will be effective. ï· Significant increase in UAS sightings from pilots (near misses) observed over the last year; no specific UAS incidents other than sightings. 6.2.3 Scenario 3: Establishing Economic Benefit of UAS at an Airport Scenario Description: An airport is considering marketing research, development, testing, and evaluation services to local technology firms and manufacturers; they are experiencing difficulty in communicating their message and obtaining support from the local population, including the general public, municipal leaders, and local economic partners. Why does the problem exist? Primary Issue: The need to achieve economic benefit from the inclusion of UAS operations at or in close proximity to airports; due to relative proliferation and growth of UAS, the marketing approach is not yet a proven one-methodology item; and the existence of concerns affecting investment potential, including privacy, sensitivity of proprietary details, technology development dependencies, potential need for specialized infrastructure, and risk. Contributing Factors ï· Insufficient support, including availability of resources (e.g., marketing and communication personnel, finances, and time) ï· Lack of UAS-specific education; local economic development/government unaware of UAS benefits/capabilities, lack of UAS operators/professionals, and public sentiment, including those aviation professionals resistant to change, against the use of UAS (e.g., safety or privacy concerns, worries of loss of jobs/ revenue, and belief rules/regulations are over burdensome). ï· Competition from conventional methods when technology is unable to meet or exceed conventional performance, complete required functions, or finishtasks due to technical or regulatory limitations (e.g., flight beyond visual line of sight, over people/specific areas, and in close proximity to manned aviation operations). ï· Lack of partnerships; among operators, government organizations, and local business ï· Need to ensure de-confliction in airspace (among manned and unmanned operations). ï· Promotion of safety in the aviation space has only recently begun to include UAS. How does the problem affect airports? ï· Unfamiliarity of requirements/regulations prevents appropriate use of UAS or delays incorporation (i.e., late to market, requiring later catch up).
Managing and Engaging Stakeholders on UAS in the Vicinity of Airports Â 77 ï· Reduces financial support; creates a burden for stakeholders; takes resources away from other important priorities. ï· Loss of authority or credibility in eyes of general public and other stakeholders. ï· Need to educate airport marketing personnel. Who is responsible for addressing this issue? ï· Airport Operator (primary) â marketing/public relations staff/department ï· Local and national economic development and advocacy organizations (primary) ï· Service Providers (primary) ï· Partners and stakeholders (contributor) ï· Local manufacturers and industry (contributor) ï· Local Media (contributor) ï· UAS remote pilots; civil and public (recreational to a limited capacity for sales of equipment/training, but not related to operation; contributor) Alternative Actions The following represent alternative actions that could be considered or conducted to address the specified problem: ï· Educate local community, potential investors and local government officials. SME 5 (Executive Director, Non-primary General Aviation Airport) recommends focusing on the question âhow can UAS benefit me?â and explaining the advantages of using UAS, over conventional methods. SME 1 (UAS Test Range Operator) emphasizes educating legislators to ensure they have a full understanding of airspace and how segregation is possible. All the SMEs agree that the education of the local community is imperative to gain their acceptance. ï· Create or participate in a series of partnerships, as follows: o Local economic development partnerships featuring airport operator, local government, chambers of commerce, local manufacturers, service providers, and industry. o Advocacy organizations such as AUVSI, AAAE, and ASSURE; these agencies can help promote the use of UAS and establish credibility. o Local schools and universities using UAS to promote aviation and provide enhanced community engagement and involvement. ï· SME 1, SME 5, SME 7, SME 8 (Commercial UAS Operator), and SME 9 are all involved in partnerships or encourage coordination with such groups. ï· Create a marketing and public relations division or educate current personnel at the airport about UAS and their benefits. An educational program, such as MOOC or other online courses, can provide flexible options to educate on-site personnel.
Managing and Engaging Stakeholders on UAS in the Vicinity of Airports Â 78 ï· Develop and implement a marketing campaign and or materials supporting sharing of coordinated message exhibiting benefits, capabilities, and points of contact Guidance Guidance on UAS economic benefit understanding is primarily related to the types of users and their subsequent benefit to the communities at an airport. The establishment of the correct perception of UAS is crucial. This can only happen through the proper education within airport outreach material. The promotion of aviation and the uses of aviation apply to UAS operations and must be carefully construed as such given proper legal limitations. This is the balance that must be achieved in order for the public to understand the overall benefit of UAS. Key guidance elements are: understanding the types of UAS operations (categories) that each have their respective benefits, whether private or commercial, and the applicability to the airportâs overall operation while highlighting safety and security. As with the past examples, availability of resources will dictate the end applicability of potential solutions identified under alternative actions. However, in a base condition, each of the primary responsibility holders could be considered for the lead role in organizing and managing strategic partnerships, featuring the unique benefits, capabilities, and connections of the other specified primaries and contributors. Further guidance, from the perspectives of the three example airports, as follows: ï· Non-primary General Aviation Airport: o UAS operational review and approval through FAA mechanisms (e.g., LAANC or FAA Drone Zone) will be necessary for each operation, given presence of Class D airspace. o Economic benefits of UAS operations for general aviation airports of this type have to promote community involvement in aviation and applications of UAS to new types of business (e.g., survey business, telecommunications companies, and inspection service companies). The airport should be considered as the hub of such operations, serving as the attractant for such businesses. An economic cost benefit analysis could then be ascertained, in partnership with applicable stakeholders. ï· Primary Commercial Service Medium Hub Airport: o Significant higher risk potential due to airspace classification (B & C) and volume of traffic. o The same economic benefit principles as a general aviation airport may not hold true for larger commercial airports simply due to the size of the operations and the larger aircraft, which becomes more of a concern for safety and associated risks. For these types of airports, it is important to establish a balance between safety and the economic benefits when UAS operations are contained and properly managed. o The economic benefits for UAS operations for these types of airports need to be expressed in a way that balances the overall community economic impacts such as business enhancement and promotion of aviation with the overall applicability of UAS in the region. Because of the type of operation at a larger airport, the focus on UAS outreach should be on certification, safety, and security with a lesser promotion of overall economic benefits.
Managing and Engaging Stakeholders on UAS in the Vicinity of Airports Â 79 ï· Primary Commercial Service Large Hub Airport: o Significant higher risk potential due to airspace classification (B) and volume of traffic. o The same economic benefit principles that apply to both the general aviation and medium hub airports may not hold true for large hub commercial airports, based on increased operational sizing, volume, and aircraft types supported. However, as with the medium hub, it is important to establish a balance between safety and the economic benefits when UAS operations are contained and properly managed. o As with the medium hub airport, the economic benefits for UAS operations need to be expressed in a way that balances the overall community economic impacts such as business enhancement and promotion of aviation with the overall applicability of UAS in the region; focus should be on certification, safety, and security, with lesser promotion of overall economic benefits. Notable Observations The following represent notable observations from the S/SME Interviews, applicable to this scenario: ï· Keeping up with service demand; field is rapidly growing, as are the interests in application of UAS technologies. ï· Slow review and approval turn around can delay or prevent desired UAS operations. ï· Many airports are directly connected to economic development; need to ensure economic viability and support: Attracting those with mature technology to the operational setting, ensuring availability of a well-trained work force. ï· Ensuring appropriate communication connectivity with all applicable parties, from FAA towers to local municipal leaders. ï· Partner with local chambers and economic development offices to collaborate and foster a healthy UAS development environment. ï· Target potential commercial users to share important resources and engage with larger community, including community leaders; establish goal to posture the airport as a single point of contact to help manage information and connect people regulations, guidance, and other beneficial resources. Â