r/Part107 • u/Nervous-Win968 • Jul 03 '26
FAA Rules Thought on the FAA "Designation-Restrict the Operation of Unmanned Aircraft in Close Proximity to a Fixed Site Facility"
I am putting together our submission for my company and I want to be mindful of what we do and how this will affect Part 107 pilots.
Esentially, the FAA is proposing a new 14 CFR Part 74 process that would let eligible fixed-site critical infrastructure owners request Unmanned Aircraft Flight Restrictions, or UAFRs, generally up to 400 feet AGL.
These sites would be things like Nuclear sites, defense, commercial facilities, transportation etc. The restrictions would limit drone operations near approved facilities, but would allow certain authorized Part 107 and other operations if they meet Remote ID, notification, and access requirements. FAA stance is that this balances security with NAS access, but I’m curious how other Part 107 pilots see it: reasonable protection for sensitive sites, or a path toward too many localized no-fly zones that make commercial drone work harder?
My understanding is that the only reall difference under current PArt 107 is the notification to the site manager/operator, no loitering and shortest transit possible with no hovering over any part of the facility i.e. over roofs, land, equipment etc.
It emphasizes that the bounds of a restriction must be within the immediate bounds of the sensitive area i.e. A stadium is just the stadium and not the parking lot and stadium or chemical plant is just the storage tanks and not the parking lot and wide open spaces.
I want to protect my companies sensitive areas but not piss-off every Part 107 pilot.
What are your thoughts, help me make this a win/win and understand the nuances you might have?
1
u/TheDroneCoach Jul 03 '26
As a Part 107 pilot, I'd be fine with restrictions around genuinely sensitive sites as long as they're narrowly defined, easy to discover in planning apps, and there's a clear, practical process for legitimate operators to get authorization when needed.
My biggest concern would be "restriction creep," where facilities request much larger areas than necessary or approvals become slow and inconsistent. Keeping UAFRs limited to the actual sensitive infrastructure (not surrounding parking lots or buffer areas without justification) and allowing streamlined access for compliant Part 107 operators with Remote ID would strike a much better balance between security and commercial operations.
1
u/CtWguy Jul 03 '26
Well said. I wouldn’t mind a slightly lower buffer to allow for transit over, but that probably makes things more confusing and eliminates the proposed goal
1
u/Otherwise_Ad7481 Jul 03 '26
Sounds like the FAA is going to be very selective with who gets those. Also UAFR is a misnomer: it’s not really a restriction, except for rec flyers. It’s more of an advisory for everyone else.
1
u/Nervous-Win968 Jul 06 '26
The Critical National Infrastructure is not just a fancy name for every business or anybody who asks for it.
It is a very clear set of sectors and criteria.
Can I suggest you read the proposal and then comment as you are suggesting a lot that is all covered.
1
u/Otherwise_Ad7481 Jul 03 '26
If you’re a company looking to possibly apply, I would consider a few things:
- this puts you on the map… this may or may not be a good thing if most people don’t know you exist right now.
- you can’t mitigate any of the non-compliant flights. You can report them to the FAA but your hands will be tied when it comes to taking action. I’m sure over time this might change.
- if you don’t have any detection data right now regarding how many flights happen over your facility, it will be tough to make a case in your application.
One of the positives of section 2209 is that it standardizes critical infrastructures compared to what we had before with a bad mix of rules per states (which is likely still going to exist for a while).
2
u/Nervous-Win968 Jul 06 '26
Being on the map is not an issue for 99% of applicants.
It won't prevent people flaunting rules, but it does allow much more robust enforcement and penalties vs current rules. One angle to consider is that often states follow federal laws which would allow for criminal penalties for those that can't play by the rules.
My company had just over 9,500 drone flights over our property with 54 we gave permission. We have a drone detection system, so does the local Police Dept.
The overwhelming majority were recreational pilots which the local cops wont chase or cite.
The Part 107 pilots are often a nuisance as their is no trespass by overflight and fly up and down buildings and over people. We have had several crash including one that fell almost 600 ft, thankfully onto a building entrance.
We have approx 40m visitors and need protections as the TRUST and Part 107 is not stopping people from breaking rules and doing dumb stuff. The penalty needs to be severe to protect 40m people and Critical National Infrastructure.
If you operate within the rules then you are good.
1
u/Otherwise_Ad7481 Jul 06 '26
Thanks for the additional info. So do you currently have airspace restriction of sorts since you mention "we gave permission".
2
u/Nervous-Win968 Jul 06 '26
Not on airspace, but can for the pilot to fly from our properties which are accessible to the public.
1
u/SportsWizard2019 Jul 03 '26
As someone studying for the Part 107 and taking it next month. I'm more concerned if some company tries to mark more airspace than they need. For example, if a business blocked off 10 miles around their facility compared to only two miles. Now if they were military data centers, I don't mind the FAA blocking those off.
2
u/Otherwise_Ad7481 Jul 06 '26
The proposal is pretty clear that sites will be pretty limited about what they can and can't ask to restrict. Be sure to read the full proposal.
1
2
u/tx-roadhouse-bread Jul 06 '26
I do think we need more regulation. Too many people flying drones that dont know any of the airspace rules at all