See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/331353775

Perspectives on Unmanned Aircraft Classification for Civil Airworthiness

Standards NASA STI Program. .. in Profile

Technical Report · February 2013

CITATIONS READS

15 1,472

6 authors, including:

Jeffrey Maddalon Allan Terry Morris

NASA NASA
31 PUBLICATIONS   302 CITATIONS    47 PUBLICATIONS   112 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Probabilistic Risk Assessment View project

Bayesian Networks View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Allan Terry Morris on 26 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20130010930 2019-02-26T13:35:39+00:00Z

NASA/TM–2013-217969

Perspectives on Unmanned Aircraft

Classification for Civil Airworthiness Standards
Jeffrey M. Maddalon, Kelly J. Hayhurst, Daniel M. Koppen, Jason M. Upchurch, and
A. Terry Morris
Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia

Harry A. Verstynen
Whirlwind Engineering LLC, Poquoson, Virginia

February 2013
 NASA STI Program . . . in Profile

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the  CONFERENCE PUBLICATION.
advancement of aeronautics and space science. The Collected papers from scientific and
NASA scientific and technical information (STI) technical conferences, symposia, seminars,
program plays a key part in helping NASA maintain or other meetings sponsored or co-
this important role. sponsored by NASA.

The NASA STI program operates under the  SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific,
auspices of the Agency Chief Information Officer. technical, or historical information from
It collects, organizes, provides for archiving, and NASA programs, projects, and missions,
disseminates NASA’s STI. The NASA STI often concerned with subjects having
program provides access to the NASA Aeronautics substantial public interest.
and Space Database and its public interface, the
NASA Technical Report Server, thus providing one  TECHNICAL TRANSLATION.
of the largest collections of aeronautical and space English-language translations of foreign
science STI in the world. Results are published in scientific and technical material pertinent to
both non-NASA channels and by NASA in the NASA’s mission.
NASA STI Report Series, which includes the
following report types: Specialized services also include organizing
and publishing research results, distributing
specialized research announcements and feeds,
 TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of providing information desk and personal search
completed research or a major significant phase support, and enabling data exchange services.
of research that present the results of NASA
Programs and include extensive data or For more information about the NASA STI
theoretical analysis. Includes compilations of program, see the following:
significant scientific and technical data and
information deemed to be of continuing  Access the NASA STI program home page
reference value. NASA counterpart of peer- at http://www.sti.nasa.gov
reviewed formal professional papers, but
having less stringent limitations on manuscript  E-mail your question to help@sti.nasa.gov
length and extent of graphic presentations.
 Fax your question to the NASA STI
 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientific Information Desk at 443-757-5803
and technical findings that are preliminary or of
specialized interest, e.g., quick release reports,  Phone the NASA STI Information Desk at
working papers, and bibliographies that contain 443-757-5802
minimal annotation. Does not contain extensive
analysis.  Write to:
STI Information Desk
 CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and NASA Center for AeroSpace Information
technical findings by NASA-sponsored 7115 Standard Drive
contractors and grantees. Hanover, MD 21076-1320
NASA/TM–2013-217969

Perspectives on Unmanned Aircraft

Classification for Civil Airworthiness Standards

Jeffrey M. Maddalon, Kelly J. Hayhurst, Daniel M. Koppen, Jason M. Upchurch, and

A. Terry Morris
Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia

Harry A. Verstynen
Whirlwind Engineering LLC, Poquoson, Virginia

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Langley Research Center

Hampton, Virginia 23681-2199

February 2013
The use of trademarks or names of manufacturers in this report is for accurate reporting and does not
constitute an official endorsement, either expressed or implied, of such products or manufacturers by the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Available from:

NASA Center for AeroSpace Information

7115 Standard Drive
Hanover, MD 21076-1320
443-757-5802
Table of Contents

Preface ........................................................................................................................................................vii
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................viii
Abbreviations ...............................................................................................................................................ix
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1
2. Scope ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
3. Terminology ........................................................................................................................................... 3
4. Classification in Context ........................................................................................................................ 4
5. Classification of Aircraft for Airworthiness in 14CFR .......................................................................... 6
5.1. High Level View of Airworthiness Classification ........................................................................ 6
5.2. Aircraft Class ................................................................................................................................ 7
5.3. Aircraft Category .......................................................................................................................... 7
5.4. System Certification in Part 23 ................................................................................................... 10
5.5. Civil Use and Public Use ............................................................................................................ 11
6. Classification Approaches for Unmanned Aircraft .............................................................................. 12
7. Observations About UAS Classification .............................................................................................. 13
8. Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 15
References ................................................................................................................................................... 17
A. US Classification Approaches for Civil Certification .......................................................................... 22
A.1. Small Unmanned Aircraft System Aviation Rulemaking Committee ........................................ 22
A.2. RTCA, Operational Services and Environmental Definition for UAS ....................................... 22
A.3. RTCA SC-203, Safety Working Group ...................................................................................... 24
A.4. ASTM F38, Unmanned Aircraft Systems Committee ................................................................ 24
A.5. Weibel and Hansman .................................................................................................................. 25
B. Non-US Classification Approaches for Civil Certification .................................................................. 26
B.1. Canada......................................................................................................................................... 26
B.2. Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority ................................................................................ 26
B.3. Australian Research Community ................................................................................................ 27
B.4. United Kingdom – Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) .................................................................. 28
B.5. European Aviation Safety Agency .............................................................................................. 29
B.6. Civil Aviation Authority of Israel ............................................................................................... 30
B.7. Directorate General for Civil Aviation – France......................................................................... 31
B.8. Japan ........................................................................................................................................... 33

v
 B.9. Sweden ........................................................................................................................................ 34
B.10. Malaysia ...................................................................................................................................... 35
B.11. New Zealand ............................................................................................................................... 35
B.12. Belgium – No Approach ............................................................................................................. 36
B.13. Germany (LBA) .......................................................................................................................... 37
B.14. Germany (UAV DACH) – No approach..................................................................................... 37
B.15. Germany (IABG) ........................................................................................................................ 37
B.16. Switzerland ................................................................................................................................. 38
B.17. Joint Authorities for Rulemaking on Unmanned Systems (JARUS) – No Approach................. 38
B.18. EUROCAE Working Group 73 UAV Systems – No approach .................................................. 39
C. Classification of US Public Use UAS .................................................................................................. 40
C.1. National Aeronautics and Space Administration ........................................................................ 40
C.2. United States Forest Service ....................................................................................................... 40
C.3. United States Customs and Border Protection – No approach.................................................... 41
C.4. US Department of Defense – Joint Unmanned Aircraft Systems ............................................... 41
D. Classification of International Public Use UAS ................................................................................... 43
D.1. North Atlantic Treaty Organization ............................................................................................ 43
D.2. United Kingdom Ministry of Defence – No Approach ............................................................... 44
D.3. Israeli Ministry of Defense – No approach ................................................................................. 44

vi
Preface
The goal of NASA’s Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Integration in the National Airspace System
(NAS) Project is to conduct research that would reduce or eliminate technical barriers to integrating civil
UAS into the NAS [NASA-UAS]. Among the many dimensions of this goal, one area being investigated
is the development of airworthiness standards. A key question covered in this paper is how to group UAS
of similar physical, performance or other characteristics, such that appropriate airworthiness standards,
ultimately including reliability and design assurance requirements, can be assigned. To that end, this
paper discusses some relevant aspects of the current regulatory framework for aircraft certification and
summarizes many UAS classification approaches offered to date, with a concise synopsis and relevant
citations, in order to achieve a good understanding of the work done globally. This work builds on
research from two contracted efforts, captured in [MTSI-2012] and [SRRC-2011]. The body of work
reviewed comes from regulatory agencies and other organizations that are stakeholders with respect to
UAS access to the NAS.
This paper presents one view of the purpose and intent of the Federal Aviation Regulations with respect
to airworthiness certification, and how those regulations may apply to UAS. It is not intended to be a
complete or expert treatment of the subject. This paper should not be considered or used as an
authoritative source for regulatory guidance, nor does it represent current or future US Government or
Federal Aviation Administration policy.
This paper, like any paper that attempts to survey a rapidly changing subject, will always remain
temporally incomplete due to constant evolution in the thinking of the worldwide certification
community. In that light, this paper presents observations on the current trends in classification
approaches for UAS and potential implications of those.

vii
Abstract
The use of unmanned aircraft in the National Airspace System (NAS) has been characterized as the next
great step forward in the evolution of civil aviation. Although use of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in
military and public service operations is proliferating, civil use of UAS remains limited in the United
States today. This report focuses on one particular regulatory challenge: classifying UAS to assign
airworthiness standards. This paper provides observations related to how the current regulations for
classifying manned aircraft could apply to UAS. The current aircraft classification approach proceeds
along two dimensions: aircraft classes and operational categories. Classification is used in two ways.
First, aircraft that have meaningful differences are certified differently. Second, classification is used to
group aircraft with similar risk profiles. This report finds that existing aircraft classes are well aligned
with UAS classes; however, the operational categories are more difficult to align to typical UAS usage.
Specifically, the factors used to group manned aircraft into similar risk profiles do not necessarily capture
UAS risks. UAS risk is investigated through gathering UAS airworthiness classification approaches from
a broad spectrum of organizations, and then identifying the sets of classification factors from these
approaches. Presumably, each organization develops a classification approach to address the risks that
they deem most relevant to safety. One observation is that aircraft weight is commonly used in
classification. Another observation is that classification approaches rarely exclusively use weight.
Importantly, most classification systems also include some operational aspects in their classification
system, such as the intended operational area.

viii
Abbreviations
AC Advisory Circular
AGL Above Ground Level
AIC Aeronautical Information Circular
ATM Air Traffic Management
ANO Air Navigation Order
ARC Aviation Rulemaking Committee
ASTM no longer an abbreviation, formerly American Society of Testing and Materials
BLOS Beyond Line-of-Sight
BMVBS The German Ministry of Transport, Building, and Urban Development
CAA Civil Aviation Authority
CAAI Civil Aviation Authority of Israel
CAP Civil Aviation Publication
CARs Civil Aviation Regulations
CASA Civil Aviation Safety Authority
CASR Civil Aviation Safety Regulations
CBP Customs and Border Protection
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COA Certificate of Authorization or Waiver
COE Center of Excellence
CofA Certificate of Airworthiness
CPA Conventionally Piloted Aircraft
CPL Commercial Pilot License
CS-LURS Certification Specification for Light Unmanned Rotorcraft Systems
DAL Design Assurance Level
DAP Directorate of Airspace Policy
DCA Department of Civil Aviation
DETEC Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications
DW Deutsche Welle
DGAC Directorate General for Civil Aviation
DoD United States Department of Defense
EASA European Aviation Safety Agency
EUROCAE European Organisation for Civil Aviation Equipment
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FINAS NATO Flight In Non-Segregated Air Space
FL Flight Level
FOCA Federal Office of Civil Aviation
ft feet
g gram
GAO General Accounting Office
GJ gigajoule
GTOW Gross Takeoff Weight
HALE High Altitude Long Endurance
IABG Industrieanlagen-Betriebsgesellschaft, German industry group
IAI Israel Aerospace Industries
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization
IFR Instrument Flight Rules
J joule
JAAA Japan Agricultural Aviation Association
JAPCC Joint Air Power Competence Centre

ix
JARUS Joint Authorities for Rulemaking on Unmanned Systems
JUAS Joint Unmanned Aircraft Systems
JUAV Japan Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Association
KE kinetic energy
kg kilogram
km kilometer
kts knots
lbs pounds
LBA Luftfahrt-Bundesamt, civil aviation authority of Germany
LOS Line-of-Sight
m meter
MALE Medium Altitude Long Endurance
MASPS Minimum Aviation System Performance Standards
MIL-HNBK Military Handbook
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology
MGTOW Maximum Gross Takeoff Weight
MoD Ministry of Defence
MSL Mean Sea Level
MTOW Maximum Takeoff Weight
MTSI Modern Technology Solutions Incorporated
NAS National Airspace System
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization
NM nautical miles
NPR NASA Procedural Requirement
OSED Operational Services and Environmental Definition
Pf probability of failure
ROA Remotely Operated Aircraft
RPA Remotely-Piloted Aircraft
RPAS Remotely-Piloted Aircraft System
RTCA no longer an abbreviation, formerly Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics
SC Special Committee
STANAG Standardization agreement
SUA Special Use Airspace
sUAS Small Unmanned Aircraft System
UA Unmanned Aircraft
UAS Unmanned Aircraft System
UAS-FCL Unmanned Aircraft System - Flight Crew Licensing
UAS-OPS Unmanned Aircraft System - Operations
UAV(s) Unmanned Aerial Vehicle(s)
UK United Kingdom
US United States
USFS United States Forest Service
UVSI Unmanned Vehicle Systems International
VLOS Visual Line of Sight
VMC Visual Meteorological Conditions
VTOL Vertical Takeoff and Landing
WG(4) Working Group (4) of RTCA SC-203

x
1. Introduction
The use of unmanned aircraft in the National Airspace System (NAS) has been characterized as the next
great step forward in the evolution of civil aviation [Sabatini-2006]. Although use of unmanned aircraft
systems (UAS) in military and public service operations is proliferating, civil use of UAS remains limited
in the United States (US) today, where operation is constrained under special airworthiness certificates in
the experimental category, which does not allow operations for compensation. Despite significant
progress made towards the goal of integrating UAS into the NAS [GAO-2012], numerous political,
technological and regulatory challenges still remain in realizing routine and safe operation of these
aircraft [DeGarmo-2004]. This report provides a preparatory discussion of one particular regulatory
challenge: airworthiness standards for UAS.
Today’s regulatory framework supporting civil aviation provides guidance necessary for aircraft, their
operations, and those involved in those operations, to ensure the ―highest possible uniform level of
safety‖ [ICAO-328]. The regulatory challenge, generally speaking, is to incorporate comparable guidance
for UAS within that framework that ensures the safety of other airspace users as well as the safety of
persons or property on the ground. Under that large umbrella, the challenge with respect to airworthiness
is to provide design standards that are no less demanding in the pursuit of safety than those currently
applied to manned aircraft [EASA-EY013-01-2009], and also ―to accommodate the diversity of UAS
design, capability, and operations‖ [CCGW-2007]. As reported in [CPWF-2010], ―much effort is being
devoted to the definition of standards specific to UAS (e.g., the specification of prescriptive requirements
on aspects of their design, maintenance, manufacture and operation). However, little consideration has
been given to how these standards and regulations may be appropriately applied across the diversity of
UAS, their operations and the mitigation strategies widely employed.‖
The regulatory challenge is particularly difficult because the safety argument that underlies standards for
manned or conventionally piloted aircraft differs for unmanned aircraft in several fundamental aspects.
First, unlike conventionally piloted aircraft, an unmanned aircraft can suffer catastrophic loss without
necessarily endangering any human life. Second, existing airworthiness and operational standards for
conventionally piloted aircraft presume the existence of an on-board pilot. Because the pilot is not on-
board an unmanned aircraft, reliance is placed on automation to a much greater degree than in
conventional aircraft—especially in unusual situations. And finally, there is a lack of hazard data on civil
UAS operations to support development of airworthiness standards. All of these impact safety risks
associated with UAS and their operations, and, as a result, the guidance needed to ensure an unmanned
aircraft has been designed for and is in a condition for safe flight.
According to Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14CFR), every civil aircraft that operates in the
US must have a valid airworthiness certificate (14CFR91.2031); and that certificate is issued when,
among other things, the aircraft conforms to an approved type design and is in a condition for safe
operation (14CFR21.183). Thus for UAS to have routine access to the NAS, aircraft design standards and
airworthiness certification processes must be established that afford confidence in their reliability and safe
operation comparable to conventionally piloted aircraft. Understanding existing airworthiness processes
and concepts of risk management and assessment as they affect the allocation of airworthiness standards
for civil use aircraft is essential to support decision-making on design and airworthiness standards for
UAS. The degree to which current regulatory guidance applies to unmanned aircraft is a subject of high
current interest.

1
The notation 14CFR91.203 should be read as, ―Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 91, section 203.‖ This
notation is common in the legal profession and will be used throughout this paper when referring to specific regulations. A
website with access to the Code of Federal Regulations is presented in the reference [CFR].

1
A key issue related to the development of airworthiness standards for civil UAS, and a primary focus of
this paper, is that of aircraft classification. Classification, as used in civil certification, partitions aircraft
with their operation into groups for the purpose of assigning regulations, requirements, standards or other
guidance to the aircraft within each group. This paper catalogs different approaches, either used or
proposed, across numerous organizations to classifying UAS. This report also discusses basic
terminology and certification considerations pertinent to airworthiness, and a preliminary analysis and
perspective on factors that may impact safety-related risk of UAS operating in the NAS. This report,
however, is not intended to be a complete treatment of the subject, but to help inform discussion within
the UAS community regarding those factors and their implications. This information will support the
development of an effective and practical approach to UAS classification.
This report is organized as follows. Section 2 outlines the scope of discussion on UAS classification, and
Section 3 defines terminology fundamental to a coherent discussion on classification of UAS for
certification. Section 4 describes the role of classification in the scope of larger certification issues.
Section 5 describes the current classification approach used in the US for conventionally piloted aircraft.
Section 6 describes UAS classification systems, for both civil use and public use, including approaches in
both the US and other countries. The specific classification approaches are presented in appendices A
through D. Section 7 shares some observations about the classification systems presented in section 6, and
thoughts on the implications of them.

2. Scope
The Federal Aviation Regulations that govern, among other things, the design and operation of civil
aircraft within the NAS are contained in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Among other
duties, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is charged with ensuring the requirements of 14CFR
are satisfied. There is a strong desire within much of the civil aviation community to leverage the existing
certification framework, as codified in 14CFR, for regulation of unmanned aircraft [CAP-722, DVP-2009,
EASA-EY013-01-2009]. This desire is partially motivated by the recognition that the process for making
substantial changes to the certification framework is complex and time-consuming. However, there are
much deeper motivations: perhaps the DoD said it best, ―requirements for UAS operation in civil airspace
means flight over populated areas must not raise concerns based on overall levels of airworthiness;
therefore, UAS standards cannot vary widely from those for manned aircraft without raising public and
regulatory concern‖ [DOD-2009].
Certification has many different meanings and many different aspects. For example, in 14CFR, there are
aspects of certification specific to aircraft, airborne and ground-based systems and equipment, to airspace
and operations within different airspace classes, and to pilots and other personnel involved in operating or
managing aircraft. In this paper, the primary focus is on certification aspects pertinent to airworthiness of
aircraft systems and equipment. Annex 8 of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
Chicago Convention states that a purpose of airworthiness is ―among other things, protection of other
aircraft, third parties and property‖ [ICAO]. The term airworthy, as defined in 14CFR21.183, means,
―…the aircraft conforms to its type design and is in a condition for safe operation.‖ Furthermore, any
aircraft that operates in the NAS must be in an airworthy condition (14CFR91.7).
There are three certificates relevant to airworthiness: a type certificate, a production certificate, and an
airworthiness certificate. A type certificate is issued for a particular design of a civil aircraft, engine, or
propeller insofar as it complies with applicable airworthiness requirements. The quality system used for
the manufacture of aircraft is addressed through production certification. A production certificate is issued
to confirm that a manufacturer can produce duplicate products under an FAA-approved type design. For
an aircraft with a type certification, information about production and maintenance must be provided to
obtain an airworthiness certificate. An airworthiness certificate indicates approval that each aircraft, as
built, complies with its type design and is in a condition for safe operation. As such, airworthiness is

2
applied on an airframe-by-airframe basis, whereas the type design applies to all aircraft of that design.
However, the same airworthiness standards, such as those in 14CFR25 for transport category airplanes,
underlie both certificates. This paper focuses on the technical aspects of airworthiness at the design phase
(i.e., type certificate). This paper does not consider issues related to production certificates or continuing
airworthiness for individual aircraft, nor does it consider the particular legal and procedural issues
involved in the certification process.
Airworthiness certificates are one of two types. Most commercial operations require a standard
airworthiness certificate. Under a standard airworthiness certificate, an aircraft typically has relatively few
operating restrictions. Special airworthiness certificates include operational limitations such as
restrictions on maneuvers, speed, number of passengers, activities undertaken, and where flights may be
conducted. The classification approach provided in 14CFR maps types of aircraft into one of these types
of airworthiness certificates. Certificates that allow commercial use have more stringent requirements
than other types of use. Regular access of civil UAS to the NAS implies some (perhaps, most) of this use
will be for commercial purposes. Therefore, in this examination of classification, certification that allows
regular use for commercial purposes is of more interest than recreational or hobby use.
Lastly with respect to scope, this paper focuses on safety and safety-related risk pertinent to airworthiness
standards, rather than other considerations such as security and environmental impact that have also been
introduced into current aircraft regulation. Concerns raised recently about the privacy implications of
UAS [GAO-2012] are, likewise, not addressed in this paper.

3. Terminology
Because the intent of this paper is to both inform and facilitate discussion on classification of unmanned
aircraft for civil airworthiness standards, a few definitions and terms are essential, especially terms
specific to classification and to unmanned aircraft. Dictionaries typically define the terms class and
category as synonyms, meaning members of a larger group that share specific properties. However, the
CFR and FAA policy distinguish between these terms. To the extent possible, this paper uses
terminology consistent with 14CFR and other FAA regulation and policy as the foundation for discussion
on UAS classification.
 Class (defined in 14CFR1.1): ―As used with respect to the certification of aircraft [i.e., aircraft
class], means a broad grouping of aircraft having similar characteristics of propulsion, flight, or
landing. Examples include: airplane; rotorcraft; glider; balloon; landplane; and seaplane‖. Another
definition of class provided in 14CFR1.1 addresses classification for airmen ratings, including single
engine, multiengine, land, water, gyroplane, helicopter, airship, and free balloon. For this paper, we
use the terminology in first definition.
 Category (defined in 14CFR1.1): ―As used with respect to the certification of aircraft [i.e., aircraft
category], means a grouping of aircraft based upon intended use or operating limitations. Examples
include: transport, normal, utility, acrobatic, limited, restricted, and provisional.‖ Other parts of the
CFR refer to the light-sport aircraft category. Just as with the definition of class in 14CFR1.1,
another definition for category addresses classification for airmen ratings, with regard to aircraft
characteristics including airplane, rotorcraft, glider, and lighter-than-air. For this paper, we use the
terminology in first definition.
In this paper, the dictionary definition for the term classification, ―a set of classes or categories often used
to organize‖ [Oxford-1996] is used. There is no explicit definition of classification given in 14CFR,
although the term is used several times, referring to classification of aircraft, airworthiness certificates, air
traffic control routes, etc. The use of the term in the CFR is consistent with the dictionary definition. A
classification approach includes both the particular arrangement of groups and the method by which
aircraft are assigned to the group.

3
Terminology specifically for unmanned aircraft is less well defined. Different terms have evolved over
the years to describe unmanned aircraft, including drone, unmanned aerial2 vehicle (UAV), as well as
UAS, which is the term commonly used within the US today. This terminology continues to evolve: in a
recent report from the ICAO, the terms remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) and autonomous aircraft are
introduced as two distinct types of unmanned aircraft (UA) [ICAO-328]. As per the ICAO definitions, a
UA is any aircraft intended to operate without a human pilot on-board; an RPA is an aircraft where the
flying pilot is not on-board the aircraft; and, an autonomous aircraft is an unmanned aircraft that does not
allow pilot intervention in the management of the flight. The term system is commonly appended, for
example unmanned aircraft system (UAS) and remotely piloted aircraft system (RPAS), to take into
account associated support equipment such as a control station, command and control links, and launch
and recovery equipment.
The main body of this report uses the term UAS, and also adopts the term conventionally piloted aircraft
(CPA) instead of manned aircraft, as recently used in other papers [ALPA-2011, CPWF-2011]. The
survey of approaches to UAS classification presented in the appendices retains the terminology originally
used in the referenced documents.

4. Classification in Context
―A prerequisite to the realization of a viable civil UAS industry is the definition of an appropriate
airworthiness certification framework for UAS. This framework must take into consideration the unique
aspects of the technology, their operations, the market drivers, and the broader socio-political issues
associated with the integration of a new aviation technology into society.‖ [CPWF-2010] Classification,
which in this context is the grouping of aircraft into classes and categories for the purpose of assigning
airworthiness standards, is foundational to a long-term certification framework intended to support
routine access to the NAS. With respect to airworthiness, routine access implies that the approach to type
design and airworthiness certification for a UAS should be similar to that for conventionally piloted
aircraft today.
The primary means to certify the design of an aircraft in 14CFR could be called standards-based
certification. The idea is that a list of minimum criteria (i.e., the standard) that must be met for
certification of a product (aircraft, engine or propeller) is established well before an applicant applies for
type certification. These standards typically include specific design criteria (e.g., structural load limits),
required design features (e.g., existence of fire extinguishers), and performance parameters (e.g., required
ratios of rotation speed to minimum control speed). Conceptually, standards-based certification is
reasonably straightforward. An applicant for certification defines a product, establishes the product's
regulatory requirements in collaboration with the certification authority, including agreement on
deviations from the standard to account for specific design elements of their aircraft, and presents
evidence that they have met the certification standard [AGF-2004, McCormick-2007]. The certification
authority evaluates this evidence to see if compliance has been achieved. Benefits of standards-based
certification include a priori knowledge of the expectations for certification, which facilitates planning
from a design and cost perspective for certification, as well as providing a consistent and level playing
field for all applicants.
For most aircraft, the standards-based approach is used (e.g., 14CFR25 for transport category airplanes).
However, for aircraft that do not obviously fit into the conventional mold, certification authorities can
establish appropriate criteria, as per 14CFR21.17b. A tilt rotor aircraft is an example of a novel design
for which a standardized set of airworthiness criteria does not exist. The advantage of the 14CFR21.17b
approach is that it can accommodate any particular type design immediately, often leveraging relevant

2
Sometimes, aerial is replaced with air.

4
portions of existing standards, without waiting for the standards development process to take place. The
14CFR21.17b approach can be used for UAS today, and, in fact, is the only alternative for their
certification at this time since airworthiness standards specific to civil UAS do not yet exist. The
disadvantages of this approach include that it is much more labor-intensive for the certifying authority;
and, since all of the criteria are not known upfront, it is more difficult for the applicant and the regulator
to plan for the cost of the certification effort, with much more uncertainty in the outcome.3
Clearly, a standards-based approach to certification is essential to achieve routine, versus case-by-case,
access to the NAS for UAS. Classification supports that approach by providing a means for grouping
aircraft together with similar design attributes (e.g., rotorcraft versus fixed wing aircraft); but, less
obviously and perhaps more importantly, grouping aircraft together that pose comparable safety risk and
holding them to the same standards. Higher confidence certification standards, necessitating levels of
redundancy and fail-safe features to meet reliability requirements, are levied on aircraft that pose a greater
safety risk; whereas those that pose less safety risk are held to a lower standard (e.g., Part 23 vs. light
sport aircraft). Classification recognizes those differences in aircraft and the need for different standards.
Airworthiness standards reflect general consensus on minimum design and performance requirements
necessary for safe flight; and are derived from engineering judgment and experience, especially lessons
learned from accidents and incidents.
Classification of UAS could proceed in a similar way: since UAS differ from conventionally piloted
aircraft in meaningful ways, these differences should be manifested in meaningful certification
differences. For example, civil UAS will require certification standards for components such as ground
control stations and communications related to aircraft control that do not exist with conventionally
piloted aircraft. This concept, apparently, is not controversial. At least since 2006, the FAA has discussed
certification of the whole system, not just the aircraft [Sabatini-2006]. Additionally, there are likely
design differences among the wide range of UAS in existence today that would drive differences in
required design criteria. For example, ―sense and avoid‖ may be provided through an on-board system or
it may be provided through a ground-based system. Although the safety objective—sense and avoid air
traffic—is the same for either approach; the airworthiness standards will vary quite a bit depending on
how the function is accomplished. In a similar way, a UAS that uses a beyond-line-of-sight
communications system will have different certification standards than one that uses line-of-sight
communications.
Classification also supports risk reduction in, at least, two additional ways. First, it uses the notion of risk
reduction through operational compensation. Some potential aircraft operations do not provide enough
economic or other benefit to justify the expense involved in a standard airworthiness certification effort.
Thus, strictly for economic reasons, these operations will not be conducted. However, in cases where
these operations do not derive their benefit through general access to the NAS, their operation may be
restricted in a way that still retains the desired benefit, without adversely affecting the safety risk to the
general public or other NAS users. The primary means provided in 14CFR to perform this risk tradeoff is
through the restricted aircraft category, where the operation of a restricted category aircraft is limited to
special purposes identified in their type certification approval. This category is used for limited special
purpose operations in manned aviation today, e.g., agricultural spraying and aerial surveying. For UAS,
this classification could be applied in a straightforward manner. One can imagine that an agricultural
UAS could fly under operational restrictions similar to conventionally piloted agricultural aircraft.
Furthermore, one may be able to develop appropriate restricted certifications for other operations that are
outside of normal air traffic routes and away from populated areas (e.g., pipeline monitoring, commercial
fish and other marine species tracking, etc.).

3
In the US, the cost of regulators is not borne by the applicant. In Europe, the applicant must account for the involvement of the
European certification experts.

5
Another way classification supports risk reduction is through the notion of certification compensation.
Advisory Circular (AC) 23.1309 [AC23.1309, p. 5-6] describes how certification standards are lowered
for avionics in some general aviation airplanes. The assessment is made that low-time general aviation
pilots have made mistakes that might have been prevented with advanced avionics, and therefore the
avionics certification requirements are lowered to encourage greater equipage. Essentially, regulators
concluded that the risk of a low-time general aviation pilot making a mistake is greater than the risk of the
avionics misbehaving. The operational risk is mitigated through acceptance of an airworthiness risk, and
by this assessment overall system risk is lowered. Using this approach for lowering certification
requirements is controversial for UAS. On one side of the debate, all other things being equal, UAS have
no people on-board, thus their risk is inherently less. On the other side, establishing that a UAS is equal
to a CPA is not trivial. For instance, the only data a ground pilot uses to build situational awareness
comes from the sensors and equipment of a UAS; in a CPA, the pilot acts as a sensor. At a higher level,
the certification requirements in AC23.1309 were only relaxed after detailed study, supported by years of
safety data. Another consideration is that in unmanned operations, the primary safety risk is borne by
other users of the airspace and the general public, not by the primary beneficiaries.
In all, the role of classification as described in this paper is to facilitate a standards-based approach to
airworthiness certification of UAS, by providing a descriptive framework for grouping together UAS with
similar risk characteristics that would then be held to similar airworthiness standards.

5. Classification of Aircraft for Airworthiness in 14CFR

Assuming, based on the reasoning in section 2, that routine access to the NAS will require UAS to be
classified by the existing approach in 14CFR, then understanding that approach to classification is critical.
As the subsections below show, the classification system encoded in 14CFR was developed over many
years as new aircraft types came into the market and real-world issues—including technical, economic,
and political issues—needed to be resolved. One particular aircraft physical parameter, weight4, is a key
dimension in aircraft classification. Weight can be viewed as a proxy for safety-related risk, that is,
heavier aircraft pose a greater risk and therefore have more stringent airworthiness standards. However,
aircraft classification for airworthiness standards includes considerations beyond aircraft weight. This
section discusses some of the most relevant considerations, as they may affect the inclusion of UAS
within that framework.

5.1. High Level View of Airworthiness Classification

CPA are classified in 14CFR based on both their physical characteristics of propulsion, flight, or landing
(aircraft class) and intended use and operational characteristics (aircraft category). To see how aircraft
class and category are used to determine applicable airworthiness standards, consider a simplification of
the full classification system in 14CFR presented in Table 1. The top row of Table 1 represents two types
of aircraft classes: airplanes and rotorcraft. The first column represents two types of aircraft categories.
The transport category refers to aircraft used for regular transportation of passengers or cargo, and the
normal category refers to most other types of normal flying5 (non-utility, non-aerobatic, or non-
commuter) operations, including general aviation, aerial photography, etc. Applicable airworthiness

4
Historically, there has been confusion between the meaning of weight and mass. A kilogram (kg) is a unit of mass and a pound
may be a measurement of weight (typically in physics and engineering) or mass (typically in commerce and law). Classification
approaches, both in the US and internationally, use these terms interchangeably, for example using the kilogram as a unit of
weight. The technical difference between weight and mass is largely irrelevant in the classification of UAS. Thus, this paper also
uses them interchangeably, but it retains the usage of the source being quoting. When the source is unclear, weight is used.
5
It is difficult to find a definitive definition for ―normal flying.‖ The 14CFR definitive describes it in terms of what it is not,
rather than what it is.

6
standards are determined as a function of the aircraft’s intended usage and the aircraft’s physical
characteristics. The entries in the table (Part 23, 25, 27, and 29 of [CFR]) provide the particular
airworthiness standards for each class/category of aircraft.

Table 1. Simplified View of Airworthiness Classification in 14CFR

Airplane Rotorcraft
Class Class
Normal Category Part 23 Part 27
(14CFR23) (14CFR27)
Transport Category Part 25 Part 29
(14CFR25) (14CFR29)

5.2. Aircraft Class

Regardless of the appeal of a simple classification approach as presented in section 5.1, the full
classification framework in 14CFR is more complex, including additional classes and categories for a
variety of aircraft types and operations. This section describes classes of aircraft in 14CFR and the next
section describes categories.
14CFR1.1 lists the following examples of aircraft classes, based on flight, propulsion, or landing
characteristics:
 Airplane, i.e., fixed wing
 Rotorcraft
 Glider
 Balloon or Manned Free Balloon
 Landplane
 Seaplane
Determining whether an aircraft is in one of these classes is fairly straightforward. For example, if an
aircraft gets its aerodynamic lift from rotating blades, including gyroplanes, the aircraft is a rotorcraft.
For aircraft outside of these classes, such as a tilt-rotor, certification would be handled under the special
provisions of 14CFR21.17b. Presumably, if the market for tilt-rotors grows and the FAA certifies several
of them, then tilt-rotor would become an aircraft class.
Most UAS designs fit well within the aircraft classes listed above. Unmanned Vehicle Systems
International (UVSI) provides an annual yearbook that catalogs UAS throughout the world from many
domains including law enforcement, commercial, military, research, etc. According to UVSI's 2012
yearbook [UVSI-2012], of the 1103 vehicles surveyed only 23 would not fit into one of the existing
aircraft classes. Those that do not fit include novel configurations such as flapping wings or tilt body
aircraft.

5.3. Aircraft Category

The aircraft categories in 14CFR, where the groupings are primarily based on similar use or operating
limitations, are provided in Table 2. This table shows the relationship among aircraft category, type
certificates, airworthiness certificates, and the possibility of performing the operation for ―compensation
or hire,‖ that is to be paid for the operation.

7
 Table 2. Aircraft Categories
Category Type Airworthiness Compensation
Certificate Certificate or Hire
Normal Yes Standard Yes
Acrobatic Yes Standard Yes
Utility Yes Standard Yes
Commuter Yes Standard Yes
Transport Yes Standard Yes
Restricted Yes Special Yes6
Primary Yes Special No
Limited See note7 Special No
Light-sport No8 Special No
Experimental No Special No9
Provisional10 Yes Special No

As seen in Table 2, most commercial operations require a standard airworthiness certificate. Under a
standard airworthiness certificate, an aircraft typically has few operating restrictions, beyond the flight
rules captured in 14CFR91, 14CFR121, 14CFR125, and 14CFR135. Special airworthiness certificates
include operational limitations such as restrictions on maneuvers, speed, number of passengers, activities
undertaken, and where flights may be conducted. As per 14CFR21.183, standard airworthiness
certificates might also be issued to aircraft that are not in a category, specifically manned free balloons
(14CFR31), or aircraft designated as special classes of aircraft (gliders, airships, etc.).
The next step in understanding aircraft classification under 14CFR is to examine how the aircraft
categories themselves are defined. As was mentioned previously, the focus of this paper is civil
operations, including flights for ―compensation or hire.‖ Thus, we will restrict our discussion categories
that operate under a standard airworthiness, and the restricted category for special purpose operations.
Table 3 relates aircraft categories to the primary 14CFR Part containing applicable airworthiness
standards per aircraft class that would typically serve as the type certification basis under a standard
airworthiness certificate or special airworthiness certificate-restricted category. This is not intended to
include everything in a typical certification basis, such as noise regulations or other regulations specific to
equipage for operational capabilities. The third column presents the expected starting point for type
design criteria.

6
Only some operations are allowed for compensation, such as for agriculture or aerial surveying (14CFR21.25)
7
A short list of World War II era aircraft have limited category type certificates [FAA-8130.2G]
8
Light Sport Aircraft are not type certificated. Instead a statement of conformance to industry consensus standards (see [ASTM-
F2245-12c]) must be provided to the FAA.
9
Operations for ―compensation or hire‖ are not allowed under an experimental certificate. However, some very limited
commercial operations are allowed including sales demonstration, market survey, and pilot training (14CFR21.191).
10
The provisional category is used during the development of an aircraft in some other category, but the vehicle in question has
not met all the requirements for a full type and/or airworthiness certificate.

8
 Table 3. Current Aircraft Category and Regulatory Basis Supporting Type Certification
Aircraft Aircraft Use and Notable Limitations Applicable Airworthiness
Category Standards for Type Design
Acrobatic Use: acrobatics Part 23, with regulations specific to
acrobatic category airplanes
Notable limitations:
weight ≤ 12,500 lbs. No acrobatic rotorcraft
seats ≤ 9, excluding pilot seats, (14CFR23.3)
Normal Use: Normal flying (nonutility, nonaerobatic, or Part 23 for airplanes
noncommuter operations)
Part 27 for rotorcraft
Notable limitations:
weight ≤ 12,500 lbs. (airplanes)
≤ 7000 lbs. (rotorcraft)
seats ≤ 9, excluding pilot seats (14CFR23.3)
Utility Use: Normal + limited acrobatics allowed; e.g., spins Part 23 for airplanes
(14 CFR 23.3)
No utility rotorcraft
Notable limitations:
weight ≤ 12,500 lbs.
seats ≤ 9, excluding pilot seats
Commuter Use: commuter operations (scheduled operation with at Part 23 for airplanes
least 5 round trips/week on at least one route between
No commuter rotorcraft
two or more points according to the published flight
schedules (14 CFR 110.2)
Notable limitations:
weight ≤ 19,000 lbs.
seats ≤ 19, excluding pilot seats (14 CFR 23.3)
Transport Use: multi-engine aircraft intended for the regular Part 25 for airplanes
public transport of passengers and/or cargo for hire or
Part 29 for rotorcraft
reward
Notable limitations:
weight: > 19,000 lbs. (jets & props), 7,000 lbs.
(rotorcraft)
seats ≥ 10 (jets), seats > 19 (props and rotorcraft)
Restricted Use: special purpose operations (as defined in Requirements of some other category
14CFR21.25, including agriculture and aerial or an aircraft meeting the
surveying) requirements and accepted for use by
the US military with exemptions and
Notable limitations: no operation over densely
operating limitations specific to the
populated areas, in a congested airway, or near a busy
special purpose (14CFR21.25)
airport (14CFR91.313)

As shown in this table, categories are defined in terms of aircraft weight, but also other factors such as
number of seats, maneuverability (acrobatic maneuvers), number of engines, frequency of flights, and
public transport of passengers or cargo. It is not difficult to recognize how each of these factors affects
risk to the people on-board those aircraft.
Unlike aircraft class described in section 5.2, the direct applicability to UAS of the aircraft categories and
the factors used to distinguish them is debatable. For example, the intended uses for UAS do not
necessarily align as well with the existing set of aircraft categories. Although one can imagine transport
category UAS for cargo, notions of normal, acrobatic, and utility category UAS are not so clear. Little, if
any, data exists to show how factors such as maneuverability, number of engines, and number of

9
scheduled operations affect risk for UAS. This observation points to a conclusion that additional aircraft
categories and perhaps even additional factors may be needed to support UAS.

5.4. System Certification in Part 23

The classification approach in 14CFR does not end with a discussion of class and category. One
particular requirement, 14CFR23.1309, regulates equipment, systems, and installations on-board normal,
acrobatic, utility, and commuter category airplanes. The accompanying advisory circular (AC23.1309-
1E), System Safety Analysis and Assessment for Part 23 Airplanes [AC23.1309], which describes a means
to meet the regulation, describes four ―certification classes of airplanes‖ within Part 23:
 Class I from 23.1309:
o Categories: normal, utility, acrobatic
o Weight ≤ 6000 lbs.
o Single reciprocating engine
 Class II from 23.1309:
o Categories: normal, utility, acrobatic
o Weight ≤ 6000 lbs.
o Either multiple reciprocating engine or a turbine engine
 Class III from 23.1309
o Categories: normal, utility, acrobatic
o Weight > 6000 lbs.
o Either a multiple reciprocating engine or a turbine engine
 Class IV from 23.1309:
o Category: commuter, typically
o Weight ≤ 19,000 lbs.
o 19 or fewer seats

This use of the term class has no relationship to the term described in section 5.2. Although class is an
overloaded term, the fact that further subgroups of normal, utility, and acrobatic category aircraft are
called out is significant. AC23.1309-1E gives specific reliability and design assurance requirements,
which affect system development cost. Table 4 relates the 23.1309 class to specific requirements for
probability of failure (Pf) and design assurance levels (DAL) at the indicated severity of failure as given
in AC23.1309-1E.

Table 4. Relationship among 23.1309 class, severity, reliability, and DAL

Reliability & Design Assurance Requirements
23.1309 Class
Minor Major Hazardous Catastrophic
Pf < 10-3 Pf < 10-4 Pf < 10-5 Pf < 10-6
23.1309 Class I
DAL = D DAL = C/D DAL = C/D DAL = C
Pf < 10-3 Pf < 10-5 Pf < 10-6 Pf < 10-7
23.1309 Class II
DAL = D DAL = C/D DAL = C DAL = C
Pf < 10-3 Pf < 10-5 Pf < 10-7 Pf < 10-8
23.1309 Class III
DAL = D DAL = C DAL = C DAL = B
Pf < 10-3 Pf < 10-5 Pf < 10-7 Pf < 10-9
23.1309 Class IV
DAL = D DAL = C DAL = B DAL = A

It is important to recognize that the classes specified in this table are particular to only one regulation:
14CFR23.1309. That is, Classes I-IV do not apply outside of Part 23 airplanes, nor do they apply to any
other regulations within Part 23. However, the important point with respect to UAS classification is that

10
both airplane weight and type of engines are factors that ultimately affect type design criteria. Moreover,
requirements for reliability and design assurance levels will likely be a significant cost driver for UAS.
The classification approach in 14CFR is not static. There is an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC)
[ARC-Part23-2011] working to reconsider the classes given in [AC23.1309]. The purpose of that ARC is
to consider reorganization of Part 23 based on airplane performance and complexity instead of the current
basis on weight and propulsion.

5.5. Civil Use and Public Use

As was mentioned several times, this paper focuses on civil operations with a special emphasis on
commercial operations. However, understanding precisely what civil operations are, including
alternatives to civil use, is helpful in fully appreciating the regulatory framework. Under 14CFR, aircraft
are classified based on use at a very high level; that is, civil use and public use. Civil use refers to aircraft
operation by a private individual or company, such as for recreational or commercial purposes. Public
use refers aircraft that are operated for governmental purposes, such as military operations, border patrol,
law enforcement, or scientific research.
Even though this paper is concerned with airworthiness standards for civil use of UAS, learning from
airworthiness-related experiences of UAS in public service is important. Indeed, the bulk of the
information that exists on safety-related hazards and design criteria for UAS comes largely from public
use.
Civil Use
Under Title 49 of the US Code (section 44704(d)), the FAA is responsible for ensuring that aircraft for
civil use are airworthy. UAS can be authorized by the FAA to operate in the NAS today through the
issuance of a special airworthiness certificate-experimental category (14CFR21.191) [FAA-7210.766].
Operating limitations and airworthiness standards are developed for the specific UAS to ensure the safety
of other airspace users and persons and property on the ground. Any aircraft operating under an
experimental airworthiness certificate cannot be used to conduct operations for compensation or hire;
however they may be used for commercial applications including research and development, market
survey, or crew training.
Model aircraft also fall under the umbrella of civil use, and are operated under the guidelines of [AC91-
57]. These guidelines do not restrict the aircraft (size, weight, etc.) or contain requirements regarding
airworthiness. Instead, these guidelines restrict model aircraft operations to visual line of sight (VLOS),
altitudes below 400 feet above ground level (AGL), day/visual meteorological conditions (VMC), away
from noise sensitive areas, and away from airports and other air traffic. Furthermore, these operations are
restricted to recreational use only (i.e., operations of model aircraft for commercial purposes are not
allowed).
Precisely what constitutes an operation for ―compensation or hire‖ is, apparently, a legal gray area. But, it
appears that general commercial use of UAS is not permitted today.
Public Use
The government agency that is conducting a public use operation must provide its own assurance that its
aircraft is airworthy, which is sometimes referred to as self-certification. UAS for public use may be
operated in the NAS under a Certificate of Authorization or Waiver (COA) issued by the FAA [FAA-
7210.766]. The public operator is required to follow the particular operating procedures delineated in the
COA, which is written for a particular operation. By 14CFR1.1, public aircraft cannot conduct
commercial operations; thus, UAS operations for compensation or hire are not permitted under a COA.

11
UAS may operate in the NAS without COAs when the activity is contained totally within active warning
and restricted areas, typically for military operations. Only aircraft involved in the operation, including
UAS, are allowed in these areas due to the inherent danger involved.
The rules that govern in-theater use of military UAS are the responsibility of the military. These rules
may change under the dynamics of the battlefield environment. Due to the vastly different risk
environment, such operations are not considered in this paper.

6. Classification Approaches for Unmanned Aircraft

Much work has been done in the past few years relevant to UAS classification. Work has been done both
nationally and internationally, for both public and civil use. In line with that, the UAS classification
approaches identified to date in this report have been organized by whether that approach is applied to US
civil UAS (Appendix A), international civil UAS (Appendix B), public use in the US UAS (Appendix C),
or international public use UAS (Appendix D), as shown in Table 5.

Table 5. UAS Classification Organization

Civil Use Public Use
US Appendix A Appendix C
International Appendix B Appendix D

The classification approaches listed in Table 6 are proposed or used in assigning regulations,
requirements, standards or other guidance for UAS to operate in civil and public use environments. Some
organizations have classification approaches specific to airworthiness (that is, grouping together different
UAS for the purpose of assigning airworthiness requirements), while other organizations have only
specified operational limitations or other criteria. Still others propose some combination of the two. As
such, there are a variety of factors used for classifying UAS in those contexts. Differences regarding
actual risk, perceived risk, and safety objectives may mean some classification approaches are less
relevant to a discussion on UAS civil airworthiness certification.
The summary of each classification approach given in the appendices provides a short description
including a characterization of the organization (e.g., government, industry) that developed the approach.
Also included is a general description of how UAS are divided into categories and classes, as well as their
purpose with respect to classification, e.g., airworthiness certification, operational constraints, etc.
Classification approaches related to operational limitations could be relevant to airworthiness, since the
limitations may be related to airworthiness concerns.
It should be noted that different organizations use different terminology (for example, definitions of class
and category). Every attempt has been made to be consistent with both the terminology used in this paper
and the spirit of the proposed system, although inconsistencies may have been inadvertently introduced.
Due to the changing nature of this subject, portions of this paper can easily become obsolete as new or
modified approaches are introduced or developed. To indicate currency, the last date this information
was accessed is noted in the references, when possible. Finally, not every organization provided a
comprehensive classification approach. For instance, some organizations evaluate the airworthiness of
each aircraft and its operation on a case-by-case basis. These organizations are listed to indicate that they
have been considered in the research, but the words ―no approach‖ are added to the section heading to
indicate that a comprehensive classification approach is not included; for example, section C.3, ―United
States Customs and Border Protection – No approach.‖

12
 Table 6. Classification Approaches
Type Appendix Included Approaches
US Civil Use A Small Unmanned Aircraft System Aviation Rulemaking Committee,
Operational Services and Environmental Definition for UAS, RTCA
SC-203, Safety Working Group, ASTM F38, Unmanned Aircraft
Systems Committee, Weibel and Hansman.
International B Canada, Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Australian
Civil Use Research Community, United Kingdom – Civil Aviation Authority
(CAA), European Aviation Safety Agency, Civil Aviation Authority of
Israel, Directorate General for Civil Aviation – France, Japan, Sweden,
Malaysia, New Zealand, Belgium, Germany (LBA), Germany (UAV
DACH) – No approach, Germany (IABG), Switzerland, Joint
Authorities for Rulemaking on Unmanned Systems (JARUS),
EUROCAE Working Group 73 UAV Systems
US Public C National Aeronautics and Space Administration, United States Forest
Use Service, United States Customs and Border Protection – No approach,
US Department of Defense – Joint Unmanned Aircraft Systems
International D North Atlantic Treaty Organization, United Kingdom Ministry of
Public Use Defence – No Approach, Israeli Ministry of Defense – No approach

7. Observations About UAS Classification

As described in section 4, classification of aircraft for the purpose of assigning airworthiness standards
should account for risk, in addition to accounting for substantive differences in design features. Ideally, if
risks inherent in different types of UAS and their operations could be identified, then UAS classification
could be fashioned around these identified risks. Although this is conceptually appealing, comprehensive
risk identification across the spectrum of UAS has proven difficult. From a high-level perspective,
DeGarmo made one of the best attempts [DeGarmo-2004].
Instead of attempting to identify all risks across all types of UAS, the research approach described in this
paper involves gathering UAS airworthiness classification approaches from a broad spectrum of
organizations, and then identifying the various classification bases (i.e., a set of classification factors)
from these approaches. Presumably, each organization develops a classification basis to address the risks
that they deem most relevant to safety. Thus, by identifying the classification bases, one can infer the
classification factors that point out the risks deemed most important to safety from a broad section of the
UAS community. An analysis of this type includes high uncertainty, thus it should be used to draw
preliminary observations, rather than precise conclusions. As additional hazard data is collected through
increased operation of UAS, safety issues and risks can be better characterized and managed through
appropriate classification.
For each classification scheme given in Appendices A-D, all of the factors explicitly used in either
structuring the classification or used to influence the requirements that might apply were identified. For
example, in the classification proposed by the small Unmanned Aircraft System Aviation Rulemaking
Committee (see A.1), gross takeoff weight of the aircraft and aircraft speed were the factors used to group
small UAS together for assigning specific sets of operational limitations and recommended system
standards.

13
Table 7 shows the different classification bases, which are composed of classification factors, from the
UAS classifications given in Appendices A-D, regardless of whether those bases were used to classify all
UAS or a particular subset of UAS. As shown in the table, some organizations only use one factor,
namely aircraft weight, whereas other organizations use two or three different aircraft or operational
characteristics to distinguish different groups of UAS. Some classifications are based on calculations of
kinetic energy, which is a function of aircraft weight and speed. Other classifications specify weight and
speed as separate factors. In Table 7, kinetic energy is considered a single driver. As is clear from this
table, aircraft weight, either directly or through kinetic energy, is a consistent driver for grouping UAS in
all but one of the classifications.
Table 7. Bases and Factors in UAS Classification
Number of Classification Bases from Appendices A-D
Factors
Aircraft weight
One Avionics complexity
Aircraft configuration (number and type of engines, etc.)
Aircraft weight, and Aircraft speed
Aircraft weight, and Application (e.g., aerial work)
Aircraft weight, and Operational range11
Two Airspace (segregated, non-segregated), and Overflown area
Kinetic energy, and Overflown area
Kinetic energy, and Operational range11
Kinetic energy, and Operational failure consequence
Aircraft weight, Altitude, and Operational range11
Three Aircraft weight, Kinetic energy, and Operational range11
Aircraft weight, Altitude, and Application
Aircraft weight, Altitude, and Aircraft speed

Although there are a number of different combinations of factors listed in Table 7, two observations are
apparent. First, aircraft weight is considered to be a predominant factor influencing risk to safety in UAS
operations. This is not surprising. Second, operational aspects are also considered an important driver for
risk in many of the classifications. These operational aspects are different from those shown in Table 3.
For example, operational factors that affect risk include if the operation is conducted within visual range
or if the operation is over a populated area. This particular observation is important because such
operational aspects are not always a factor in the existing classification for CPA. Aircraft weight is the
dominant factor affecting risk for CPA operating under a standard airworthiness certificate. For those
aircraft, where the aircraft operates is inconsequential from a risk perspective compared with the number
of people on-board. That is reflected in the fact that normal, acrobatic, utility, commuter, and transport
aircraft are not distinguished by where they fly, but largely by weight. Generally speaking, heavier
aircraft allow more people to be carried, and thus must meet more stringent reliability requirements.
Under a special airworthiness certificate-restricted category, where the aircraft operates is an important
factor. Because operation of those aircraft is in a limited operational area, operational restrictions can
compensate for not meeting all airworthiness standards expected under a standard certificate. The fact

11
Operational range refers to the maximum distance between the pilot and the vehicle. Operational range is typically designated
as Line-of-Sight (LOS) or Beyond Line-of-Sight (BLOS). [ICAO-328] distinguishes between visual line-of-sight and radio line-
of-sight. This distinction points to two distinct hazards: visual line-of-sight operations allow a human to continue to provide ―see
and avoid‖ capability and radio line-of-sight recognizes a UA may lose radio contact and potentially becoming uncontrolled by
any human. Further analysis is needed regarding this factor to provide salient differences between these uses.

14
that many of the proposed UAS classification approaches include operational dimensions may suggest
that further exploration of operation under a restricted category is warranted.
Modern Technologies Solutions, Inc. (MTSI) and Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU) both
conducted independent research12 on the topic of UAS classification. MTSI's study [MTSI-2012]
consisted of an extensive evaluation of proposed UAS classification approaches (similar to the survey
reported in Appendices A-D), supplemented by interviews with subject matter experts, to identify criteria
important to grouping UAS for airworthiness certification. The MTSI study identified weight/mass,
airframe type, and complexity as important classification factors, and concluded that any civil UAS
classification scheme should be similar to that given in 14CFR, although some modification would likely
be necessary.
ERAU approached the problem from a different direction. In their study [SRRC-2011], ERAU derived
parameters for possible UAS classification based on UAS system design and desired operational
characteristics. Then, a House of Quality methodology [HOQ- 2012] was applied to determine which
parameters might have the greatest potential impact on safety, and therefore greatest importance in
classification. In contrast to MTSI's approach, the ERAU study concluded that operational parameters,
such as the population density in the operational area, airspace classification, and contingency planning
rank higher with respect to impact on safety than most system parameters such as weight.
Though the two research studies reach different conclusions, both studies confirm that identification of
factors important to UAS classification is not clear-cut. Those studies also support the general view that
there are factors that indicate risk associated with UAS beyond those that define the current aircraft
class/category structure in 14CFR, and those factors should be considered in deliberations about UAS
classification.

8. Summary
In the pursuit of enabling UAS to routinely access the NAS, much attention is being devoted worldwide
to challenges of developing certification processes, regulation, and standards for UAS, including those
related to airworthiness. Many organizations have developed or are currently debating classification
approaches for UAS airworthiness standards. Most notably, though, there is an absence of consensus on
what those airworthiness standards should be and how they might apply across the diverse spectrum of
UAS types. This paper is not intended to propose answers to those questions, but instead to facilitate
ongoing deliberations by providing insight into some of the relevant factors underlying classification of
CPA, and observations based on current approaches about the applicability of the current aircraft
classification system and corresponding airworthiness standards to UAS.
In particular, this paper calls attention to several considerations that are relevant in the discussion of
classification. Today, classification is used to support a standards-based approach to CPA certification,
through airworthiness standards specifically tailored to the physical characteristics (class) and operational
characteristics (category) of the aircraft; e.g., Part 25 for transport airplanes, and Part 27 for normal
rotorcraft. This function of aircraft class and category neatly captures risk associated with design
attributes of a particular type of aircraft, but also risk associated with intended use and operational
limitations. Classification also supports risk reduction through operational compensation or through
certification compensations such as those done for different classes of Part 23 airplanes. Altogether, the
classification approach codified in 14CFR and other regulatory policy represents a sensible and successful
approach to mitigating airworthiness hazards in CPA.

12
Funded under NASA Research Announcement (NRA), ―Research Opportunities in Aeronautics – 2010 (ROA-2010),‖
NNH10ZEA001N, Appendix D-3 (UASNAS1) of Amendment No 5, Released June 2, 2010.

15
An important question is whether that classification approach can accommodate the broad range of UAS
and their desired civil operations. Examination of many UAS classification approaches from around the
world suggests that classification of UAS for airworthiness is more complicated than it may appear.
Aircraft weight and a parameter that includes weight, namely kinetic energy, are commonly used in
classification. Another observation is that classification approaches rarely exclusively use weight.
Importantly, most classification systems also include operational dimensions to their classification
system, such as the intended operational area. These operational dimensions are not necessarily different
in intent from those used to partition different CPA categories today; but there is a subtle difference.
Under a standard airworthiness certificate that allows relatively unrestricted access to the NAS, intended
operational area is not a factor in distinguishing categories; weight is, since that is the primary indicator
for risk in CPA. Operation under a special airworthiness certificate-restricted category is different, with
distinctions in intended use and operational area becoming dominant risk factors. Attention focused on
classification particular to potential UAS operations amenable to a special airworthiness certificate-
restricted category may facilitate small incremental steps into the NAS.
These observations may seem trivial. Their contribution, though, is in supporting an emerging realization
that the historical separation of airworthiness issues and operational issues may not apply neatly to UAS
[Allouche]. One implication is that, while the general class and category framework in 14CFR seems
suitable for UAS, the particulars of the existing aircraft categories may not be a good fit for UAS. For
example, there may be no normal, acrobatic, or utility category of UAS. Further analysis of factors
sufficient to characterize the risk associated with UAS and their intended operations is necessary to define
appropriate categories of UAS that support a standards-based approach to assignment of airworthiness
requirements.

16
References
[AC23.1309] FAA, ―System Safety Analysis and Assessment for Part 23 Airplanes.‖ 17 Nov 2011.
Advisory Circular 23.1309-1E. Link:
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/
[AC91-57] FAA, ―Model Aircraft Operating Standards.‖ 9 June 1981. Advisory Circular 91-57. Link:
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/
[AGF-2004] AIA, GAMA, and FAA Aircraft Certification Service, ―The FAA and Industry Guide to
Product Certification,‖ Second edition, September 2004.
[Allouche] Michael Allouche, UAS Airworthiness Certification & System Safety Requirements,
Outstanding Issues and Recommendations from the Third Workshop of the EC UAS Panel, 19
October 2011.
[ALPA-2011] Air Line Pilots Association, "Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Challenges for Safely Operating
in the National Airspace System", April 2011, Link:
http://www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/pressroom/inthecockpit/UASWhitePaper.pdf
[ARC-Part23-2011] FAA, ARC Charter, 14 CFR Part 23 Reorganization Aviation Rulemaking
Committee, Effective Date 15 August 2011. (retrieved 28 Nov 2012). Link:
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/media/Part23Reorg.
ARC.Cht.8-15-2011.pdf
[ASTM-F2245-12c] ASTM International, Standard Specification for Design and Performance of a Light
Sport Airplane, document number F2245-12c, 2012.
[ASTM-F2397-07] ASTM International, Standard for Unmanned Aircraft Systems, document number
F2395-07, June 2012.
[ASTM-F2505-07] ASTM International, Standard Practice for Application of Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) Federal Aviation Regulations Part 21 Requirements to Unmanned Aircraft
Systems (UAS), document number F2505-07, August 2011.
[Belgium-2007] Belgium Civil Aviation Authority. ―Belgian Certification Specification for UAV
Systems,‖ 24 January 2007, Rev. 00.
[Bolinger-2012] Bölinger, M. Drones Over Deutschland. 26 January 2012. (retrieved 11 July 2012)
Deutsche Welle. Link: http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,15690912,00.html
[CAAI] Civil Aviation Authority of Israel. CAAI UAV Systems Airworthiness Regulations. (retrieved 28
Nov 2012). Link:
http://caa.gov.il/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=902&Itemid=
[CAP-722] Civil Aviation Authority (UK), Directorate for Airspace Policy, ―CAP 722 Unmanned
Aircraft System Operations in UK Airspace – Guidance‖, 10 August 2012. (retrieved 28 Nov
2012). Link: http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP722.pdf
[CASR-101] Australian Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR) ―Part 101 – Unmanned Aircraft and
Rockets.‖ Subpart 101.F applies to UAVs. (retrieved 28 Nov 2012). Link:
http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_91039)
[CASR-AC-101] Advisory Circular AC 101-1(0) July 2002, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Operations,
Design Specification, Maintenance and Training of Human Resources. (retrieved 28 Nov 2012).
Link: http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/rules/1998casr/101/101c01.pdf.
[CBP] United States Customs and Border Protection. Link: www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/am/

17
[CCGW-2007] Cork, Lennon R., Clothier, Reece A., Gonzalez, Luis F., and Walker, Rodney A. ―The
Future of UAS: Standards, Regulations, and Operational Experiences.‖ IEEE Aerospace and
Electronic Systems Magazine, November 2007.
[CFR] United States Government ―Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations,‖ Parts 1, 21, 23, 25, and others
(as noted). (retrieved 28 Nov 2012). Link: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-
idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14tab_02.tpl
[Coyne-2011] James Coyne, UAS Regulatory Situation In Australia, published in the 2011-2012 UAS
Yearbook - UAS: The Global Perspective. 9th Edition, June 2011.
[CPWF-2010] Clothier, R., Palmer, J., Walker, R., and Fulton, N. ―Definition of an Airworthiness
Categories for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)‖ 27th International Congress of the
Aeronautical Sciences (ICAS), 19-24 September 2010.
[CPWF-2011] Clothier, R., Palmer, J., Walker, R., and Fulton, N. ―Definition of an Airworthiness
Certification Framework for Civil Unmanned Aircraft Systems.‖ Safety Science, vol. 49, pp. 871
- 885. 2011.
[DefStan-970] United Kingdom Ministry of Defence. Design and Airworthiness of Requirements for
Service Aircraft. Defence Standard 00-970. 31 October 2011
[DeGarmo-2004] DeGarmo, Matthew T. ―Issues Concerning Integration of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in
Civil Airspace‖ MITRE Technical Report, November 2004.
[DGAC-2011] The French Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development, Transportation and Housing.
DGAC, the Directorate General for Civil Aviation. June 2011. (retrieved 28 Nov 2012). Link:
from www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr: http://www.developpement-
durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/DGAC_the_French_Civil_Aviation.pdf
[DGAC-2012] The French Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development, Transportation and Housing.
Arrêté du 11 avril 2012 relatif à la conception des aéronefs civils qui circulent sans aucune
personne à bord, aux conditions de leur emploi et sur les capacités requises des personnes qui les
utilisent. April 2012. (retrieved 28 Nov 2012). Link:
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do;jsessionid=?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000025834953&
dateTexte=&oldAction=rechJO&categorieLien=id
[DO-264] RTCA, Inc. SC-189. Guidelines for Approval of the Provision and Use of Air Traffic Services
Supported by Data Communications. DO-264, September 2000.
[DO-320] RTCA, Inc. SC-203. Operational Services and Environmental Definition (OSED) for
Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS). DO-320, June 2010.
[DOD-2009] Office of the Secretary of Defense, DoD, FY2009-2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated
Roadmap, April 2009.
[DVP-2009] Dalamagkidis, K., Valavanis, K., & Piegl, L. On Integrating Unmanned Aircraft Systems
into the National Airspace System: Issues, Challenges, Operational Restrictions, Certification,
and Recommendations. Springer. Science and Engineering Series, vol 36. 2009.
[EASA-EY013-01-2009] European Aviation Safety Agency. (2009). Policy Statement: Airworthiness
Certification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), E.Y013-01, (retrieved 27 June 2012). Link:
http://www.easa.europa.eu/certification/docs/policy-statements/E.Y013-
01_%20UAS_%20Policy.pdf
[EUROCAE-ER-004] EUROCAE WG-73 ―A Concept for UAS Airworthiness Certification and
Operational Approval.‖ ER-004. November 2010

18
[FAA-1110.150] FAA Order 1110.150, ―Small Unmanned Aircraft System Aviation Rulemaking
Committee.‖ 10 April 2008. Link:
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/1110.150.pdf
[FAA-7210.766] FAA Order N JO 7210.766 ―Unmanned Aircraft Operations in the National Airspace
System (NAS).‖ effective 28 March 2011, cancelled 27 March 2012. (retrieved 28 Nov 2012).
Link:
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/index.cfm/go/document.information/docu
mentID/903572
[FAA-8130.2G] FAA Order 8130.2G "Airworthiness Certification of Aircraft and Related Products",
effective 7/02/2012 (retrieved 11 January 2013). Link:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgOrders.nsf/0/7a09d53fb0d532558625788
5004d9e1b/$FILE/8130.2G_CHG1_Incorporated.pdf
[FAA-8130.34B] FAA Order 8130.34B ―Airworthiness Certification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems and
Optionally Piloted Aircraft.‖ effective 11/28/2011. (retrieved 28 Nov 2012). Link:
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/8130.34B.pdf
[FOCA] Federal Office of Civil Aviation (Switzerland) (retrieved 28 Nov 2012). Link:
http://www.bazl.admin.ch/dienstleistungen/02658/index.html (in German, French, or Italian)
[GAO-2012] Government Accountability Office, ―Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Measuring Progress and
Addressing Potential Privacy Concerns Would Facilitate Integration into the National Airspace
System.‖ September 18, 2012. GAO-12-981
[HOQ- 2012] Lowe, A. J. ―QFD Tutorial.‖ Webducate, interactive tutorial. 15 Feb. 2012.
http://www.webducate.net/qfd/qfd.html
[Hosoda-2010] Yoshinobu Hosoda. ―Japan UAV Association.‖ 2010-2011 UAS Yearbook - UAS: The
Global Perspective - 8th Edition - June 2010 Link:
http://www.dcabr.org.br/download/eventos/eventos-realizados/2010/seminario-vant-27-10-
2010/cd-uvs-yearbook/pdf/P057_JUAV_Yoshinobu-Hosada.pdf
[ICAO] ICAO. ―Annex 8 to Convention on International Civil Aviation, 11th edition.‖ July 2010.
[ICAO-328] ICAO. ―Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS).‖ Circular 328-AN/190. March 2011.
[IABG-2001] Industrieanlagen-Betriebsgesellschaft mbH (IABG), ―Integration of Unmanned Aerial
Vehicles into Future Air Traffic Management—Final Report,‖ Version 1.1, Cooperative Actions
of R&D in EUROCONTROL (CARE) Innovative Action Preliminary Study. 7 Dec 2001.
[JARUS] Joint Authorities for Rulemaking on Unmanned Systems (JARUS) http://www.jarus-
rpas.org
[JAPCC-2010] Joint Air Power Competence Centre (JAPCC). ―Strategic Concept of Employment for
Unmanned Aircraft Systems in NATO.‖ January 2010.
[JUAS-2011] Department of Defense UAS Task Force, Airspace Integration Integrated Product Team,
―Unmanned Aircraft System Airspace Integration Plan‖ version 2.0, March 2011.
[JUAV-Rotary-2005] Japan UAV Association (JUAV). ―Safety Standards for Commercial Use,
Unmanned, Rotary-Wing Aircraft in Uninhabited Areas.‖ January 28, 2005
[JUAV-Fixed-2007] Japan UAV Association (JUAV). ―Safety Standards for Commercial Use,
Unmanned, Fixed-Wing Aircraft in Uninhabited Areas.‖ September 2007 – In Japanese
[Leijgraff-2011-1] Leijgraff, R. v. ―JARUS, A harmonized approach to UAS rulemaking.‖ 25 October
2011. (presentation).

19
[Leijgraff-2011-2] Leijgraaf, R. v. (2011, June). A Coordinated International Approach to Small UAS
Rulemaking. June 2011. (retrieved 5 Dec 2012) Link: http://www.jarus-
rpas.org/4_Presentation_01_UAS-Yearbook-2011.pdf
[Lichtenberg-2012] Lichtenberg, A. Use of Drones on the Rise in Germany. 24 June 2012. (retrieved 11
July 2012) Deutsche Welle. Link: http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,16047503,00.html
[Malaysia-2008] Malaysian Department of Civil Aviation. ―Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Operations
in Malaysian Airspace.‖ 18 February 2008. (retrieved 5 July 2012) Link:
http://aip.dca.gov.my/aip%20pdf%20new/AIC/AIC%20200804.pdf
[McCormick-2007] McCormick, G. Frank, ―Certification of Civil Avionics.‖ In the Digital Avionics
Handbook, Second edition, Chapter 7, CRC Press, 2007.
[MIL-HNBK-516B] Department of Defense, Handbook, Airworthiness Certification Criteria, MIL-
HNBK-516B, 26 September 2005.
[MTSI-2012] Modern Technology Solutions, Inc. (MTSI), ―Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS)
Classification Schemes Study Final Report.‖ 31 August 2012.
[NASA-NPR] NASA Procedural Requirement (NPR) 7900.3C, ―Aircraft Operations Management,‖
effective date 15 July 2011.
[NASA-UAS] NASA Technology Development Project Plan, Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)
Integration in the National Airspace System (NAS), 31 January 2013.
[NZ-2007] Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand. ―Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.‖ 22 January 2007.
(retrieved 28 Nov 2012), from www.caa.govt.nz/ga/uav/uav_issues_paper.pdf
[Oxford-1996] ―The Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus: American Edition.‖ Oxford University Press.
1996.
[RTCA-SC203] RTCA Special Committee 203 Terms of Reference, RTCA Paper No. 065-10/PMC-790,
April 26, 2010. Link: http://www.rtca.org/CMS_DOC/SC-203-TOR-PMC%20Approved-04-26-
2010.pdf
[RTCA-SC203-WG4] SC203-WG4-005 CERT REF ―RTCA SC-203 UAS Safety Work Group (WG4)
Position Paper,‖ May 2011.
[Sabatini-2006] Nick Sabatini. ―Testimony before the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Aviation on Unmanned Aircraft Activities.‖ 29 March 2006.
[Sato-RMAX-2003] Akira Sato. ―The RMAX Helicopter UAV‖ Yamaha Technical Report. 2 Sept 2003.
[Sato-2003] Akira Sato (Yamaha) ―Civil UAV Applications in Japan and Related Safety & Certification.‖
2003. (Presentation).
[Skyguide-web] Skyguide. Link: http://www.skyguide.ch/en/company/cooperation/
[Skyguide] Skyguide. ―Skyguide, Swiss ANSP: UAS meets OPS reality.‖ (retrieved 28 Nov 2012). Link:
http://www.icao.int/Meetings/UAS/Documents/19_Lissone-Mike_Eurocontrol_Belgium_For-
Skyguide.pdf
[SRRC-2011] Richard Stansbury, Dylan Rudolph, Kevin Rigby, and Jayson Clifford. ―A Literature
Survey of UAS Classification Schemes.‖ 20 December 2011. White paper.
[STANAG-4671] NATO Standardization Agency ―Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Systems Airworthiness
Requirements (USAR).‖ 2009.
[SUAS-ARC-2009] Small UAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC). ―Comprehensive Set of
Recommendations for sUAS Regulatory Development‖, 1 April 2009. (retrieved 28 Nov 2012).

20
 Link: http://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/AUVSI/958c920a-7f9b-4ad2-9807-
f9a4e95d1ef1/UploadedImages/sUASARCRecommendationsApril109.pdf
[Sweden-2009] Swedish Transport Agency. (2009, Nov. 5). The Swedish Transport Agency´s
Regulations on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), TSFS 2009:88. 5 Nov 2009. (retrieved 5 July
2012) Link:
http://www.transportstyrelsen.se/Global/Luftfart/Luftfartyg/The%20Swedish%20UAS-
regulation%20(TSFS%202009-88).pdf
[TC-2006] Transport Canada, ―Report from UAV Working Group.‖ (retrieved 28 Nov 2012). Link:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/standards/general-recavi-uavworkinggroup-2266.htm
[UAV-DACH-2010] Von Bothmer, Bernhard. (2010, June). UAV DACH e.V., German Language
Association, 2010-2011 UAS Yearbook - UAS: The Global Perspective - 8th Edition - June 2010.
[USC49-44704(d)] United States Government, ―Title 49, United States Code,‖ Subtitle I, Department of
Transportation, section 44704(d).
[USFS-NASMP] USFS National Aviation Safety and Management Plan (NASMP). 2012. Link:
www.fs.fed.us/fire/aviation/av_library/index.html
[USFS-Airworthiness] USFS Special Mission Airworthiness Assurance Guide for Aerial Firefighting and
Natural Resource Aircraft. 7 December 2011. Link:
www.fs.fed.us/fire/aviation/av_library/index.html
[UVSI-2012] Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (UVSI), ―2012 UAS Yearbook", 10th Edition,
Blyenburgh & Co, June 2012.
[WeibelHansman-2005] Roland Weibel and John Hansman, ―Safety Considerations for Operation of
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in the National Airspace System‖, MIT ICAT-2005-1, March 2005

21
A. US Classification Approaches for Civil Certification
The following subsections provide information on UAS classification from a civil use perspective from
organizations within the United States.

A.1. Small Unmanned Aircraft System Aviation Rulemaking Committee

In April 2008, the FAA established a small UAS ARC to provide recommendations for integration of
small UAS into the NAS ([FAA-1110.150]. There are no specific airworthiness requirements
recommended for small UAS in the final recommendations from that ARC [SUAS-ARC-2009], except
for inspection and maintenance requirements and compliance with yet-to-be-developed consensus
standards. However, the report does include 17 recommended ―system standards‖ which would provide a
guide to the development of the consensus system standards, most of which are airworthiness related.
The report provides recommendations for operational limitations and required capabilities for five
different groups of small UAS, as per the following table (see Table 8).
This report is only a recommendation to the FAA and may or may not be similar to the final FAA
rulemaking for small UAS. The FAA is expected to release a rule for small UAS in 2013.
Table 8. UAS Groups Recommended by small UAS ARC
Group Group characteristics: Operational Limitations Recommended System
Gross Takeoff Weight Standards
(GTOW), w (lbs.)
Speed, s (kts)
I w ≤ 4.4 Generally include: 7 of the 17 recommended
s ≤ 30  Limitations on how high they can standards apply to Group 1
Frangible fly, within certain distances from
airports; e.g., Operate ≤ 400 AGL
II w ≤ 4.4 17 of 17 recommended
in Class C, D, E, and G airspace
s ≤ 60 standards apply to Groups
 Requirements on the pilot in II-V. These include
control and visual line of sight standards for:
III w ≤ 19.8  Proximity to airports  Structural integrity
s ≤ 87
 Fire protection
IV w ≤ 55 Requirements become more stringent  Control Station
s ≤ 87 as weight increases. synchronization
See Section 9.2 for Group I
 Powerplant fail safe
See Section 10.2 for Group II
 Weight and balance
See Section 11.2 for Group III
 Fuel/power markings
See Section 12.2 for Group IV
 materials
See Section 13 for Group V
V Lighter-than-air small UAS Reserved – no recommendations for this group

A.2. RTCA, Operational Services and Environmental Definition for UAS

The RTCA organizes committees of government and industry representatives to develop consensus
standards for aviation and air navigation systems. RTCA Special Committee (SC) 203 was established in

22
2004 to define Minimum Aviation System Performance Standards (MASPS) for the UAS, for sense and
avoid technology, and for command and control technology [RTCA-SC203].
The SC-203 committee published the Operational Services and Environmental Definition (OSED) for
Unmanned Aircraft Systems [DO-320] in June of 2010. The OSED offers a comprehensive approach to
UAS classification geared to the assessments specified in [DO-264]. These assessments are aimed at
addressing issues related to airspace integration, not airworthiness. Table 9 presents the classification
approach. First the vehicles are divided along basic vehicle characteristics (i.e., fixed wing, rotary wing,
etc.). Next vehicles are subdivided based on attributes unique to UAS: conversion of a CPA to a UAS;
high altitude long endurance (HALE), meaning an altitude greater than 60,000 ft.; or low visual signature,
which is termed ―small.‖ The airspace information presented in Table 9 was derived from representative
scenarios in [DO-320].
Table 9. DO-320 Classification Approach
13
Class Subclass Typical Potential Example
Airspace
Turbojet fixed- Standard A, C, D Global Hawk, X-47B
wing
Non-standard small
Non-Standard HALE
Conversion A, C, D Gulfstream G550
Turboprop Standard
fixed-wing
Non-standard small
Non-Standard HALE A, C, D, E, G Predator B
Conversion A, C, D, E, G King Air 200, Cessna
Caravan
Reciprocating/ Standard D, E, G Shadow 200
electric fixed-
Non-standard small E, G ScanEagle, Raven
wing
Non-Standard HALE A, C, D, E, G Predator A, Global
Observer
Conversion C, D, E, G Cessna 182
Vertical take-off Standard D, E, G Firescout, RMAX
and landing Type II
(VTOL)
Non-standard small E, G T-Hawk
Non-Standard HALE A, C, D, E, G Hummingbird
Conversion C, D, E, G Bell 206
Airship Standard E, G SA-60 LAA
Non-standard small
Non-Standard HALE E, G WDL 1B
Conversion

13
DO-320 uses the term category, however this factor’s definition is closer to class, as described in section 3.

23
A.3. RTCA SC-203, Safety Working Group

In a separate effort from the OSED (section A.2), the Safety Working Group (WG4) of RTCA SC-203
has proposed using a simple two-part approach as a basis for conducting an operational safety assessment
to help derive requirements in the absence of a UAS classification system [RTCA-SC203-WG4]. The
regulations in Part 23 would apply to propulsion, mechanical systems, and structures for all UAS. The
two-part approach applies to systems and equipment (i.e., avionics) as follows:
Table 10. UAS Representative Class from SC-203 Safety Working Group
Class Class Characteristics Applicable Airworthiness
Requirements
1 non-complex UAS systems, regardless of Class I from [AC23.1309]
whether they perform critical functions
2 complex UAS systems Class III from [AC23.1309]

[AC23.1309] identifies a ―complex system‖ as one whose operation, failure modes, or failure effects are
difficult to comprehend without the aid of analytical methods or structured assessment methods.
The WG4 position paper provides a summary of different approaches that were considered and the
rationale for the two-part approach described above. The rationale for this approach is that for some
systems, airworthiness standards given in Part 23 for propulsion, mechanical systems, and structures are
sufficient, may be reduced, or eliminated (e.g., lower loads for wings, unneeded seat belts and oxygen
systems). But more complicated avionics complexity may require higher standards to compensate for the
removal of the pilot. WG4 also observes that operational considerations such as UAS loitering over urban
areas for several hours may also require a higher level of design assurance.
WG4 is currently reevaluating this proposed approach. A new position paper for consideration by WG4
and the full committee is expected to follow. The new approach is still likely to be based on UAS
complexity.

A.4. ASTM F38, Unmanned Aircraft Systems Committee

ASTM International, formerly known as the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), is an
international voluntary consensus standards organization. ASTM Technical Committee F38, Unmanned
Aircraft Systems, is developing standards for airworthiness, operations, and pilot and maintenance
qualifications. This committee has produced a document [ASTM-F2505-07], which proposes a
modification to 14CFR21 (Certification Procedures for Products and Parts) to incorporate certification
procedures for UAS. To fully understand this document ASTM has also produced a terminology
document [ASTM-F2397-07]. The document [ASTM-F2505-07] refers to UAS as an aircraft category
(see section 4.7) in the same sense as normal, utility, acrobatic, commuter, and transport categories.
Section 1.1 mentions four UAS classes: micro (no definition specified by ASTM F2396-07), mini (≤ 55
lbs. maximum gross takeoff weight (MGTOW)), light (≤ 1320 lbs. MGTOW) and Remotely Operated
Aircraft (ROA), but considers Part 21 to only be applicable to light UAS and ROA. Airworthiness
certification is suggested as unnecessary for unmanned aircraft in the micro and mini classes.
Requirements for a special airworthiness certificate for light UAS are given in a new section (10.13)
proposed for Part 21, comparable to the requirements for a special airworthiness certification for a light
sport category aircraft.

24
A.5. Weibel and Hansman

The FAA and NASA funded Roland Weibel and John Hansman of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) to investigate the safety issues of integrating UAS into the NAS. Their research
report, titled ―Safety Considerations for Operation of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in the National Airspace
System,‖ [WeibelHansman-2005] describes a UAS classification approach as follows:
Table 11. UAS Classification From MIT Research Report
Class Mass4, m (lbs.) Operating Area Operating Altitude, h (ft,FL)
Micro m<2 Local < 500
Mini 2 ≤ m ≤ 30 Local 100 ≤ h ≤ 10,000
Tactical 30 ≤ m ≤ 1000 Regional 1500 ≤ h ≤ 18,000
Medium 1000 ≤ m ≤ 30,000 Regional/National 18,000 ≤ h ≤ FL 600
Altitude
High Regional/National/International h > FL 600
Altitude
Heavy m > 30,000 National/International 18,000 ≤ h ≤ FL 450

The report contains extensive analysis of the risk from ground impact for aircraft in each class
considering population density and kinetic energy, and also considers risk of mid-air collision based on
air traffic density over the continental US. The report stops short of proposing specific airworthiness
requirements or operational criteria for the different classes.

25
B. Non-US Classification Approaches for Civil Certification
The following subsections provide information on UAS classification from a civil use perspective from
organizations outside of the United States.

B.1. Canada

In December of 2006, the General Aviation branch of Transport Canada assembled the Unmanned Air
Vehicle Working Group to address the integration of UAS into the Canadian national airspace [TC-2006].
The Working Group recommended the adoption of a classification approach based on maximum takeoff
weight (MTOW) to provide some harmonization with existing Civil Aviation Regulations (CARs) as well
as European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) criteria.
Note that the Working Group’s recommendations for classification also introduce some coupling with
operational conditions for UAS up to 35 kg.
Table 12 shows the classification approaches proposed by the Working Group. For MTOWs up to 35 kg,
classification type is further segmented into LOS and BLOS operation, where LOS operations would
make use of existing CARs for model aircraft and BLOS operations would call for new regulations. The
Working Group adopts the weight breakpoints of UAS at 35 kg and 150 kg to be consistent with EASA
and NATO criteria. Transport Canada recognizes that the possibility of future modifications to the
MTOW used for classification dependent upon any Standard and Recommended Practice developments
by the ICAO.
Table 12. Classification approaches proposed by Canada’s Unmanned Air Vehicle Working Group
Category Characteristics of Category: Airworthiness requirements
Weight4, w (kg)
Operation (LOS / BLOS)
I w ≤ 35, equivalent to CARs for
LOS model aircraft
II w ≤ 35, more rigorous standards than
BLOS model aircraft
III 35 ≤ w ≤ 150 airworthiness standards,
internationally harmonized
IV w > 150 full type certification,
internationally harmonized

B.2. Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) is responsible for regulating civil use of UAS. The
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASRs) are Australia’s equivalent of 14CFR in the US. In 2002,
CASA introduced civil UAS regulations, making CASA the first civil regulatory agency to do so [Coyne-
2011]. These regulations, however, require Certificates of Airworthiness (CofAs) to be issued under
experimental or restricted categories, and therefore only solve part of the UAS integration challenge.
Australia also has an active research community (see section B.3) working to propose a more-permanent
framework for regulation. A common theme between CASA and the research community for the existing

26
and proposed regulatory framework is the perceived risk posed by UAS operations [DVP-2009]. Thus,
the recommended airworthiness certification criteria are closely coupled with operational considerations.
Currently, CASR Part 101 (Unmanned Aircraft and Rocket Operations) [CASR-101] contains regulations
for the operation of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). Part 101 separates model aircraft from UAVs,
then divides UAVs into three categories: micro, small, and large (see Table 13). Part 101 requires all
large UAVs to have a special certificate of airworthiness in the restricted category or an experimental
certificate. In addition, any UAV that operates in a populous area at a height lower than necessary to clear
the area in case of a failure must have a certificate.
The advisory circular for CASR 101 [CASR-AC-101] partitions guidance for operational approval and
for airworthiness into two categories: small UAVs and large UAVs. An airworthiness certificate is not
required for small UAVs. However, small UAVs may apply for a CofA through a process similar to that
for large UAVs, and thereby gain access to a broader scope of operations, dependent upon conditions in
the CofA (AC 101-1(0).12.2.3).
Table 13. Australia’s UAV Categories
Categories Category Characteristics: Airworthiness Operational
Gross Weight4, w (kg) Requirements Requirements
Micro w ≤ 0.1 None Unspecified in CASR
UAV 101.F
Small a UAV that neither a large None, if operated over None for operation < 400
UAV UAV nor a micro UAV unpopulated areas, can ft. AGL over unpopulated
Weight, w (kg) follow large UAV process areas
0.1 ≤ w ≤ 150 for relief of this restriction For operations ≥ 400
AGL, requirements
include: maximum
altitude, communication
requirements, operating
times, operating area
limitations, and UAV
equipment
Large w > 150 (airplanes) Must use experimental or Must have an operating
UAV w > 100 (rotorcraft) restricted category certificate
There are other specifications airworthiness certificate,
for airships, parachutes and lift comparable to requirements
devices under manned standards

B.3. Australian Research Community

Researchers from the Australian Research Centre for Aerospace Automation, Defence Science and
Technology Organisation, and Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation have
written a number of papers related to UAS classification for the purpose of airworthiness regulation. One
particular paper of interest, Definition of an Airworthiness Certification Framework for Civil Unmanned
Aircraft Systems [CPWF-2010 and CPWF-2011], introduces an approach to UAS classification that is
notably different from most others. The authors propose a quantified risk matrix as a framework for
guiding the structuring of airworthiness regulations for UAS, which is reproduced in Table 14. This
approach defines an airworthiness certification framework that matches the UAS type to its operational
environment. The UAS type represents a group of UAS where the magnitude of damage is similar given
the occurrence of an unrecoverable, flight-critical failure and independent of any particular area over‐
flown. The operational environment represents a grouping of operational areas where the potential for

27
realizing loss is of a similar magnitude, but does not include the loss of the UAS itself. The corresponding
risk of a catastrophic event occurring increases with the aircraft’s potential for causing damage and the
density of the operational environment. Certification categories are then assigned to each scenario (cell)
based on the assessed levels of risk.
Table 14. Australian Research Classification

B.4. United Kingdom – Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is responsible for regulating civil UAS operations in the United
Kingdom (UK). The CAA’s Directorate of Airspace Policy (DAP) provides guidance under Civil
Aviation Publication (CAP) 722: Unmanned Aircraft System Operations in UK Airspace [CAP-722] for a
path to UAS certification. CAP 722 classifies UAV according to which authority regulates civil UAV in
Europe (see Table 15). As the table shows, large UAV are under the regulatory purview of EASA.
Table 15. UK CAP 722 UAV Groups

Weight
Civil Category Mass, m (kg) Civil Regulation
Classification Group

Small Unmanned
1 m ≤ 20 national
Aircraft
2 Light UAV 20 < m ≤ 150 national

3 UAV m > 150 EASA

More specific guidance is provided in the Civil Operations section (Section 3) of [CAP-722]. Section 3,
Chapter 1 states that ―all civil aircraft [shall] fly subject to the legislation of the Air Navigation Order

28
2009 (ANO) and the associated Rules of the Air Regulations 2007.‖ However, in accordance with its
powers under Article 242 of the ANO, the CAA may exempt UAV operators from the provisions of the
ANO and the Rules of the Air, depending on the unmanned aircraft’s potential to inflict damage and
injury. Small, unmanned aircraft are exempted from most of the provisions of the ANO and Rules of the
Air Regulations by the provisions of Article 253.
Table 16 summarizes the CAA policy with respect to operational constraints and airworthiness standards
for unmanned aircraft flying in UK airspace.
Table 16. UK Operational Constraints and Airworthiness Standards for UAS
Civil Aircraft Application Operational Airworthiness
Category Weight4, w Permission Requirements /
(kg) standards
Small UAV w ≤ 20 Other No  No airworthiness
standards
Commercial use (aerial work), Yes
congested areas, or close to
people or property
Light UAV 20 < w ≤ 150 Commercial use (aerial work) Yes  Airworthiness
recommendation from
accredited body
UAV w > 150 Commercial use (aerial work) By existing  EASA airworthiness
national operating standards
rules

B.5. European Aviation Safety Agency

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) was created in July 2002 by the European Union to
provide a common regulatory framework for its member states. EASA’s responsibilities include type
certification of aircraft and components. EASA Policy Statement [EASA-EY013-01-2009], Airworthiness
Certification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), establishes general principles for type certification
(including environmental protection) of UAS. In particular, the policy provides guidance for type
certificates and restricted type certificates as per regulations in Part 21. The policy does not apply to
military or public use UAS, experimental UAS, or UAS less than 150 kg. Appendix 1 of the policy
statement describes an approach for selecting the applicable airworthiness code(s), based on kinetic
energy principles and equivalence with conventionally piloted aircraft.
Two energy calculations are made: one for an ―unpremeditated descent‖ and one for a ―loss of control‖.
The standards applied are on a per design feature basis. For features whose failure would affect the
ability to maintain altitude, the ―unpremeditated descent‖ standard is used. For features whose failure
would affect the ability to maintain control, the ―loss of control‖ standard is used. Table 17 summarizes
this classification approach. EASA has a preference to maintain the existing classes/categories for CS-23,
CS-25, etc. (equivalent to 14 CFR Part 23, Part 25, etc.)

29
 Table 17. EASA classification
Failure If the Kinetic Fixed Wing Airplanes would Rotorcraft would
Consequence Energy, KE (GJ), apply the airworthiness apply the
of the aircraft is… requirements from airworthiness
requirements from
Unpremeditated 0 ≤ KE ≤ 0.0015 Microlight (similar to ultralight)
Descent 0 ≤ KE ≤ 0.003 CS-Very Light Airplanes
(similar to light sport aircraft)
0.0015 ≤ KE ≤ 0.02 CS-23 single engine CS-27
0.01 ≤ KE ≤ 0.1 CS-23 dual engine CS-29
KE ≥ 0.06 CS-25
Loss of Control 0 ≤ KE ≤ 0.01 Microlight (similar to ultralight)
0 ≤ KE ≤ 0.025 CS-Very Light Airplanes
(similar to light sport aircraft)
0.01≤ KE ≤ 0.2 CS-23 single engine CS-27
0.1 ≤ KE ≤ 2 CS-23 dual engine CS-29
KE ≥ 0.3 CS-25

The ranges for kinetic energy in the table are approximate and based on visual interpretation of values on
a graph. Some of the categories overlap, indicating that a combined standard from both categories may be
needed, at the discretion of the certification authority. In addition, the certification authority may require
different probabilities of equipment failure and design assurance level then those based on [AC23.1309].
EASA’s policy statement [EASA-EY013-01-2009] indicates that airworthiness is primarily targeted at the
protection of people and property on the ground. Avoiding other airspace users is part of the operational
regulations, not airworthiness requirements. EASA acknowledges that for a system to implement ―see
and avoid‖, it will rely on a verification of proper system functioning and hence bring in airworthiness
issues.

B.6. Civil Aviation Authority of Israel

The Civil Aviation Authority of Israel (CAAI) is the regulator for the civil aviation sector, as part of
Israel’s Ministry of Transportation. The paper CAAI UAV Systems Airworthiness Regulations14 [CAAI]
describes CAAI interim policy for approval of civil or non-military UAV operations in the State of
Israel, as defined in the applicability conditions section. This document contains regulations on
airworthiness, continued airworthiness, and manufacturer organization.
Section 4 of [CAAI] defines three ―top level‖ categories that should constitute the driving factor in
defining the extent and level of requirements to be applied when granting approval to conduct UAV
operations:
 Category I: UAV operations that do not belong to either of the other two categories, i.e.,
conducted within confined airspace portions and above confined area (usually unpopulated).
 Category II: UAV operations may be allowed with some operational restrictions (e.g., in terms of
airspace segregation or overflown areas), with two practical subdivisions.
o Category IIa: Airspace restrictions but no specific restrictions in term of overflown areas.
o Category IIb: Airspace restrictions and flight above sparsely populated areas only.
14
The authority of the ―CAAI UAV Systems Airworthiness Regulations‖ paper is unknown. It was found on the Israeli CAA
website.

30
  Category III: UAV operations may be allowed with no specific operational restrictions (i.e., in
non-segregated airspace and over populated areas).

Table 18 provides high-level guidance for airworthiness and operational approval.

Table 18. Airworthiness and Operational Requirements for UAS in Israel

Category Category characteristics Airworthiness Operational
approval Approval / Airspace
(requirements) Requirements
I UAV operations that do not belong to Basic evidence of flight Segregated airspace,
either of the other two categories, (i.e., safety to show that limits on overflown
conducted within confined airspace applied limitations may areas
portions and above confined area be complied with
usually unpopulated)
II UAV operations may be allowed with Cat IIa: may be identical Only partial
some operational restrictions (e.g., in to Cat III compliance, tailored to
terms of airspace segregation or over Cat IIb: may be tailored the level of airspace
flown areas), with two practical to the level of over restrictions applied
subdivisions flown areas limitations
 Cat IIa – Airspace restrictions
but no specific restrictions in
terms of overflown areas
 Cat IIb – Airspace restrictions
and flight above sparsely
populated areas only
III UAV operations may be allowed with Full certification Compliance with
no specific operational restrictions required operational rules,
(i.e., in non-segregated airspace and including collision
over populated areas) avoidance requirements

B.7. Directorate General for Civil Aviation – France

The French Directorate General for Civil Aviation (DGAC) is part of France’s Ministry of Ecology,
Sustainable Development, Transport and Housing, and is responsible for regulating the French airspace,
among other activities [DGAC-2011]. In April 2012, the DGAC issued regulations concerning the design,
use, and operators of UAS in France, which include a UAS classification approach that is related to
airworthiness [DGAC-2012]. In the regulations, UAS are primarily separated between model aircraft and
RPA, and they are then further subdivided by weight, operation, and in the case of model aircraft, by
propulsion system [DGAC-2012]. The DGAC defines model aircraft to include the requirement that it
remain ―permanently within direct visual range of the remote pilot‖ [DGAC-2012]. Since model aircraft
are not the focus of this paper, they were omitted from the summary of the DGAC system (categories A-
C), as shown in Table 19. Table 19 includes information on the design and operational requirements in
addition to the airworthiness requirements related to classification. It should also be noted that the
regulations pertain only to specific operations of UAS, which are shown in Table 21. Finally, France is
also a member of EASA, and aircraft greater than 150 kg fall under the purview of EASA.

31
 Table 19. DGAC UAS Categories
Category Maximum Takeoff Operational Constraints Airworthiness
Weight4, w (kg) Requirements
D w<2 1) May not operate while aboard another Exempt
moving aircraft without obtaining
permission
2) LOS or remote viewing if 2nd pilot can
take command
3) may operate only in specified scenarios
(S-1,S-2,S-3,S-4, see Table 20)
E 2≤w<4 1) May not operate while aboard another Exempt
moving aircraft without obtaining
permission
2) LOS or remote viewing if 2nd pilot can
take command
3) may operate only in specified scenarios
(S-1, S-2, or S-3, see Table 20)

4 ≤ w < 25 1) May not operate while aboard another

moving aircraft without obtaining
permission
2) LOS or remote viewing if 2nd pilot can
take command
3) may operate only in specified scenarios
(S-1 or S-2, see Table 20)
F 25 ≤ w < 150 1) May not operate while aboard another Required
moving aircraft without obtaining (issued by
permission DGAC, not
2) LOS or remote viewing if 2nd pilot can EASA)
take command
G w ≥ 150 1) May not operate while aboard another Required.
moving aircraft without obtaining Issued by
permission EASA.
2) LOS unless certified to be operated
BLOS

32
 Table 20. DGAC UAS Scenarios
Number Description
S-1 An operation conducted within direct visual range of the remote pilot, away from any
populated areas, at a maximum horizontal distance of 100 m from the remote pilot.
S-2 An operation conducted away from any populated area, in a volume with a maximum
horizontal radius of 1 km and a height of less than 50 m above the ground and artificial
obstacles, with no one on the ground in this operating area.
Note: requires specific authorization unless the RPA is type-certificated (see 3.2.3.3 of
[DGAC-2012])
S-3 An operation conducted in a built-up area or in the vicinity of people or animals, within
direct visual range of and at a maximum horizontal distance of 100 m from the remote
pilot.
Note: requires specific authorization unless the RPA is type-certificated (see 3.2.3.3 of
[DGAC-2012])
S-4 A specific activity involving aerial surveying, photography, observation and surveillance
conducted away from any populated area, but not meeting the criteria for scenario S-2,
the flight height being less than 150 m above the ground and artificial obstacles.
Note: requires specific authorization unless the RPA is type-certificated (see 3.2.3.3 of
[DGAC-2012])

Table 21. DGAC UAS Operations

Applicable UAS Operations15
1. Agricultural, phytosanitary or health and safety treatments, and any other operations
involving spreading on the ground or dispersal in the atmosphere
2. Airdrops of any kind
3. The towing of banners or any form of advertising
4. Aerial surveying, photography, observation and surveillance; this activity shall include
participation in fire-fighting activities
5. Any other specific activity requiring a derogation from the general air traffic rules
6. Training for any of the aforementioned activities

B.8. Japan

Use of UAS for civil applications is governed by two different organizations in Japan: the Japan
Agricultural Aviation Association (JAAA) and the Japan UAV Association (JUAV). The JAAA, which
is part of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, addresses the safe construction and
operation of UAS for agricultural applications. JAAA is part of the ministry of agriculture, since the bulk
of UAS operations in Japan are for agricultural purposes, which entail flying over uninhabited fields with

15
―Anyone wishing to deploy an RPA for any other activity shall contact the Minister responsible for civil aviation, in order to be
notified of the conditions applicable to this new activity‖ [DGAC-2012].

33
line-of-site operations. The JUAV Association is a private industry consortium of sixteen companies that
reports to the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. This group was set up to expand Japan’s UAS
industry and to develop standards for the safe use of UAS in non-agricultural applications. The Japanese
Civil Aviation Bureau (Japan’s equivalent of the FAA), which is a part of the Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, does not address UAS issues [Sato-RMAX-2003].
In 1991, JAAA issued a ―Safety Standard for Unmanned Helicopters of Agricultural Use‖ [Hosoda-
2010]. This document is only available in Japanese and was not translated for the purposes of this paper.
However, JUAV has proposed a classification system (see Table 22) [Sato-2003]. Since many Japanese
policy documents are not available in English, it is not clear whether this system has legal force.
Table 22. Japanese UAS Safety Standards

Rotary Wing Fixed Wing Hobby-level

Airspace shared with To be formulated To be formulated Not applicable
manned aircraft
Flying over inhabited To be formulated To be formulated Not applicable
areas
Out of visual range, [JUAV-Rotary- [JUAV-Fixed- Not applicable
uninhabited 2005] 2007]
Within visual range, [JUAV-Rotary- [JUAV-Fixed-
uninhabited 2005] 2007]
Agricultural spraying, Existing JAAA Not applicable
uninhabited standards

B.9. Sweden

According to the Swedish Transport Agency’s statute 2009:88 [Sweden-2009], a UAS classification
approach has been put into place based on physical properties (MTOW and KE)16 as well as the type of
operation (visual LOS or beyond visual LOS) as shown in Table 23. It is assumed that for cases of
ambiguity (e.g., UAS less than 7 kg but with kinetic energies greater than 1000 J) that the applicable
category would be the highest applicable category (i.e., Category 2 for the example case). According to
the statue, the regulations ―shall apply to design, manufacture, modification, maintenance and activities
with civil unmanned aircraft systems within Sweden which are not covered by regulation number
216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the
field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency [EASA].‖ This statement
indicates that for aircraft under the purview of EASA (i.e., aircraft above 150 kg) the EASA standards
should be used.
Table 23. Swedish Transport Agency UAS classification approach
Category Maximum Takeoff Kinetic Energy, Operational
Weight4, w (kg) KE (J) Restriction
1A w ≤ 1.5 KE ≤ 150 LOS
1B 1.5 < w ≤ 7 KE ≤ 1000 LOS
2 w>7 N/A LOS
3 N/A N/A BLOS

16
Since weight is a significant part of kinetic energy, no explanation is given why kinetic energy is specified instead of speed.

34
B.10. Malaysia

The Malaysian Department of Civil Aviation (DCA) issued an Aeronautical Information Circular (AIC)
titled, ―Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Operations in Malaysian Airspace,‖ to provide guidance to civil-use
UAS operators in the form of Civil Aviation Regulations [Malaysia-2008]. In particular, this AIC version
states that civil-use UAS above 20 kg shall be required to have a certificate of airworthiness. However,
the document focuses primarily along operational dimensions and does not provide details of the
airworthiness certification process for UAS, nor does it provide details of UAS classification approaches
beyond introducing the 20 kg benchmark. Section 2.1 of the AIC provides some evidence that the DCA
has considered classification approaches that relate UAS to manned aircraft but, at the time of this paper,
it is not clear what criteria are being considered as necessary for establishing equivalence, nor is the
characterization of the equivalence clear. Table 24 shows a framework of the classification approach, as it
has been interpreted from the DCA AIC.

Table 24. Conceptualization of the Malaysian Department of Civil Aviation’s UAS classification approach
Weight4, w (kg) Airworthiness Certification Basis
w < 20 No CofA necessary
w ≥ 20 ―manned aircraft equivalent class or category‖

B.11. New Zealand

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) of New Zealand released their ―UAV Issues Paper‖ in January of
2007 [NZ-2007]. The paper presents the relevant UAS regulatory and operational issues identified by the
CAA, defense, and industry at a seminar held in late 2006. A portion of the paper is devoted to discussion
of a proposed UAS classification approach (see Table 25). The approach is similar to others discussed
throughout this paper in its use of kinetic energy as a means of classification as well as the inclusion of
operator and operational dimensions as further considerations for classification. Although the approach
outlined in Table 25 was prepared without explicit consideration of any existing international regulatory
efforts, the CAA recommended in their issues paper that a survey of global UAS regulation be conducted
in the interest of harmonization.

35
 Table 25. New Zealand proposed UAS classification approach
Airworthiness
Kinetic Energy,
Class Operation Operator Requirement Certification
KE (J)
Requirements
Must be regulated by certificated
LOS
UAV association
Must be
1 KE ≤ 10,000 BLOS or Commercial regulated by None
controlled Pilot License certificated
airspace (CPL) required UAV
association
Annual inspection
Certificated by CAA, CPL
required, UAV flight
10,000 J ≤ KE ≤ required, type rating required,
2 N/A permit required
1,000,000 and if RPA or IFR17 must hold a
(similar to microlight
current instrument rating
aircraft)
Type certificate,
airworthiness
Certificated by CAA, CPL certificate,
required, type rating required, maintenance release,
3 KE > 1,000,000 N/A
and if RPA or IFR must hold a and continuing
current instrument rating airworthiness as for
manned type
certificated aircraft

B.12. Belgium – No Approach

The Belgian Civil Aviation Authority, which is part of Belgium’s Federal Public Service Mobility and
Transport and responsible for preparing and implementing transportation policies, produced the Belgian
Certification Specification for UAV Systems in January 2007 [Belgium-2007]. This document is a set of
certification specifications mostly based on EASA CS 23 requirements. The document lists the individual
CS 23 requirements as they may apply to fixed-wing, single, or multi-engine UAS. This paper does not
propose any type of UAS classification, except in the sense that there is a single class for UAS that are
fixed wing UAS. No guidance or other information is given for UAS that are not of this type.
Because Belgium is a member of EASA, classification of UAS for the purpose of specifying
airworthiness requirements will presumably follow guidance from EASA; EASA requirements will be
used for aircraft above 150 kg.

17
Instrument Flight Rules

36
B.13. Germany (LBA)

Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA) is the national civil aviation authority of Germany. The LBA is responsible
for developing and maintaining aviation safety standards among other responsibilities. No English-
language LBA documentation regarding UAS airworthiness was found. The most relevant information
was found in a January 2012 news report, where Deutsche Welle (DW) reported [Bolinger-2012] that the
German parliament was considering a bill that would approve ―unmanned aeronautical systems‖ for
operation in the national airspace system. According to the report, The German Ministry of Transport,
Building, and Urban Development (BMVBS) was seeking to create the UAS category and establish a
procedure of approval. More recently, DW reported [Lichtenberg-2012] that the BMVBS had approved
most of the 500 applications to use drones in the German airspace. The applications had been submitted
over the past two years up to the time of the report, May 2012. Most notably, the article states that,
―according to current regulations, drones cannot be heavier than 25 kilograms and must not fly out of
their controller’s sight.‖ Thus, it appears the present classification approach includes a single category
with a maximum weight restriction of 25 kg and LOS operation.

B.14. Germany (UAV DACH) – No approach

The German-language UAS association known as UAV DACH represents the German, Austrian, Swiss,
and Dutch RPAS industry and research organizations [UAV-DACH-2010]. UAV DACH is a legal non-
profit German association that ―contributes to the German legislative process by supplying opinions and
position papers to the German authorities, which will help to standardize the necessary safety standards
for the national and pan-European use of civil unmanned aircraft systems.‖ This group has not publicly
proposed a UAS classification approach.

B.15. Germany (IABG)

This description of IABG comes from the report [MTSI-2012]. Industrieanlagen-Betriebsgesellschaft

mbH (IABG) was founded as a central analysis and testing organization for the aeronautics industry and
the Ministry of Defense in 1961 as part of an initiative by the German government. Today, it is a leading
European technology and science service provider.
In December 2001, IABG developed a preliminary study in response to a 2001 EUROCONTROL
research proposal examining innovation in air traffic management (ATM) research. The IABG study
[IABG-2001] identifies a UAS classification scheme based on weight, range, radius, and typical
maximum altitude (see Table 26). This classification scheme was developed to support UAS certification.
Table 26. Germany (IABG) UAV Classification
UAV Class Maximum Range Category Typical Radius, r Typical Max
Takeoff Weight4, (NM) Altitude (ft)
w (kg)
Class 0 w < 25 Close Range r < 10 1000
Class 1 25 ≤ w ≤ 500 Short Range 10 ≤ r ≤ 100 15,000
Class 2 501 ≤ w ≤ 2000 Medium Range 101 ≤ r ≤ 500 30,000
Class 3 w > 2000 Long Range r > 500 30,000

37
B.16. Switzerland

Switzerland integrated its civil and military airspace in 2001 [Skyguide-web]. The Swiss regulatory
efforts on UAS appear to largely involve a few key organizations, both private and public. The most
prominent organizations include the Swiss Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), Skyguide, and
Aerosuisse.
FOCA, part of the Swiss Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and
Communications (DETEC), is Switzerland’s regulatory and supervisory authority for aviation. Currently,
the Swiss regulations address UAS operational certification on a weight basis, with a 30 kg breakpoint. In
particular, UAS above 30 kg must seek specific approval for operation in the Swiss national airspace, and
UAS below 30 kg do not require authorization to operate, provided they are operated as outlined in Table
27 [FOCA].
Skyguide is a company that provides air traffic management services and is charged with the
responsibility for ensuring the efficient and shared use of the Swiss airspace by commercial, general
aviation, and military air traffic [Skyguide-web, Skyguide]. Skyguide has planned for a ―fully
unsegregated‖ Swiss airspace to exist sometime in 2012, which plans to include UAS operations as well
[Skyguide]. As of July 2012, however, clear evidence of integration beyond that provided in Table 27 was
not identified.
Table 27. Swiss UAS Classification Approach
Mass, m Operational Authorization
Class18 Operational Restrictions
(kg) Condition Requirements19
A. No aerial photography of
military installations or in
1 VLOS None cases that violate privacy
laws.
B. Must operate at least 5 km
from airport runways
VLOS with
2 FOCA approval A and B
Binoculars
m ≤ 30 ―The video glasses and
similar devices shall be
permitted if a second
operator monitors the flight
3 BLOS and was able to resume A and B
control at any time of the
device. The operator must
then be at the same place as
the driver.‖
4 m > 30 FOCA approval FOCA approval FOCA determination.

B.17. Joint Authorities for Rulemaking on Unmanned Systems (JARUS) – No Approach

Joint Authorities for Rulemaking on Unmanned Systems (JARUS) is a consortium of civil aviation
authorities from 19 countries whose goal is to draft harmonized technical and operational requirements

18
These classes are unofficial, author-named classes, and not officially defined by FOCA.
19
Any UAS above 500 g requires insurance of at least one million francs.

38
for the certification and airspace access of light UAS [JARUS]. These draft requirements will be
submitted to European Organization for Civil Aviation Equipment Working Group 73 (EUROCAE
WG73), RTCA SC203 and NATO Flight In Non-Segregated Air Space (FINAS) for consultation. To that
end, JARUS has created three subgroups: Certification Specification for Light Unmanned Rotorcraft
Systems (CS-LURS), System Safety (i.e., the ―1309 group"), and Ops and Licensing [Leijgraff-2011-2,
Leijgraff-2011-2].
CS-LURS has submitted a draft for light unmanned rotorcraft systems to EUROCAE WG73 for
consultation which is based on the Certification Specification for Very Light (conventionally piloted)
Rotorcraft (less than 600 kg). The ―1309 group‖ will draft system safety requirements and advisory
material, and their analysis will establish systems integrity standards. They have also submitted a draft
proposal to EUROCAE WG73. Additionally, Ops and Licensing has drafted a UAS-Flight Crew
Licensing (UAS-FCL) regulation and provided it to EUROCAE WG73. Their next activity will be to
draft a UAS-Operations (UAS-OPS) regulation.

B.18. EUROCAE Working Group 73 UAV Systems – No approach

The European Organisation for Civil Aviation Equipment (EUROCAE) is an industry consensus body
that develops technical standards for aviation equipment. This organization is comparable to RTCA in
the US and EUROCAE Working Group (WG) 73 is comparable to RTCA Special Committee 203 (see
section A.2). The WG 73 charter includes analysis of the key issues related to UAV operations in the
context of European ATM and UAV terminology and definitions as required. WG 73 includes four sub-
groups:
 SG1 UAS Operations
 SG2 UAS Airworthiness
 SG3 Command, Control, Communications, Spectrum and Security
 SG4 UAV under 150 kg
WG 73 produced a report ―A Concept for UAS Airworthiness Certification and Operational Approval‖ in
November 2010 [EUROCAE-ER-004] that provides an overview of EASA-related general regulations
and guidance, and summarizes the EASA policy approach, including UAS airworthiness categorization
and overall EASA certification specification-tailoring considerations. This document bases its
classification approach on EASA guidance (see section B.5).

39
C. Classification of US Public Use UAS
The following subsections provide information on UAS classification from a public use perspective from
organizations within the United States.

C.1. National Aeronautics and Space Administration

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) operates unmanned aircraft for a variety of
research applications, including numerous science missions. NASA Procedural Requirement (NPR)
7900.3C, Aircraft Operations Management [NASA-NPR], groups UAS into three categories for
specifying requirements for the following: (1) Airworthiness and Flight Safety Review, (2) Maintenance,
(3) Range Operations, (4) Mishap Reporting, and (5) Flight Termination System. Table 28 gives the
characteristics for the three UAS categories and the statement for airworthiness requirements for flying in
special use airspace. The NPR allows very capable aircraft to be designated as small UAS. In this NPR,
small UAS are defined as model or sub-scale aircraft designed and built to operate with an onboard flight
management system, may carry a variety of payloads, and be operated using either licensed or unlicensed
frequency bands for command and control. Small UAS can be operated by a manual control, by an
onboard flight management system (still under human control), or autonomously.
Table 28. NASA Classification Approach
Category Characteristics of Airworthiness requirements
Category: For operations in Special Use Airspace
Weight, w (lbs.),
Airspeed, s (kts)
I w ≤ 55 Commercial off-the-shelf models and small UAS (sUAS)
Model or s ≤ 70 receive flight approval via NASA Center airworthiness and
small UAS flight safety review process. All NASA and NASA hosted
II 55 ≤ w ≤ 330 aircraft must have an airworthiness statement and flight
Small UAS s ≤ 200 release
III w > 330 NASA Center airworthiness and flight safety review and a
UAS s > 200 flight readiness review are required. Subsequent system
modifications require the same reviews and a technical
review in accordance with Center requirements. All NASA
and NASA hosted aircraft must have an airworthiness
certificate and flight release.

C.2. United States Forest Service

The US Forest Service (USFS) is an agency of the Department of Agriculture that manages the national
forests and grasslands. Their use of aircraft, including unmanned aircraft, is integrally linked with their
role in fighting wildland fires. Other agency use of aircraft includes insect and disease surveys, aerial
photography, and aerial applications related to forest health. The forest service, like the Department of
Defense, only uses one set of policy documents for both conventionally piloted aircraft and UAS [USFS-
Airworthiness].
Consistent with 14CFR1, the USFS distinguishes between two types of aircraft: public and civil. When
the USFS use their aircraft for civil operations, the FAA regulates compliance with the airworthiness
requirements. The USFS self-certifies the airworthiness of public aircraft. Furthermore, the USFS

40
operates UAS as public aircraft, and only public aircraft are used for firefighting missions. The
airworthiness requirements for these firefighting missions are based on a safety assessment of the
particular aircraft and its particular operation.
The USFS is just beginning to develop the policy documents for UAS. Their document ―National
Aviation Safety and Management Plan‖ [USFS-NASMP] is released every year, and the 2012 version
was the first version to discuss UAS operations.

C.3. United States Customs and Border Protection – No approach

The Customs and Border Protection (CBP) service is a law-enforcement organization within the
Department of Homeland Security. The mission of the border security part of CBP is to monitor the
borders of the United States to prevent illegal entry into the country and the smuggling of drugs, weapons,
and other contraband. This agency flies five MQ-9 Predator-B UAS along the northern and southern
borders of the country. In addition, the agency is acquiring a variant of the MQ-9 called a Guardian UAS
that is specialized for marine applications.
Despite investigation, no information was found about CBP UAS airworthiness classification or standards
[CBP].

C.4. US Department of Defense – Joint Unmanned Aircraft Systems

The Joint Unmanned Aircraft Systems (JUAS) Center of Excellence (COE) was a multi-service unit
based at Creech Air Force Base in Indian Springs, Nevada that was disestablished in 2011. The COE was
designed to improve UAS interoperability and use, and it examined the use of sensors and intelligence
collection assets to meet joint operational requirements of U.S. forces in any combat environment. The
COE was an operationally focused organization concentrating on UAS systems technology, joint
concepts, training, tactics, and procedural solutions to the warfighters’ needs. The center had
representatives from the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, as well as other Department of
Defense (DoD) and non-DoD agencies.
Table 29 is often given in descriptions of UAS classification within the military [JUAS-2011]. There
seems to be some movement to use this classification approach for the purpose of specifying certification
requirements of any type. The DoD military handbook (MIL-HNBK) on airworthiness [MIL-HNBK-
516B] covers all aircraft certification criteria (for both conventionally piloted and unmanned aircraft) and
does not offer a classification system. However, there is recognition that the standards must be modified
for particular aircraft, especially unmanned ones.

41
 Table 29. Department of Defense—Joint UAS Center of Excellence
UAS Maximum Gross Normal Speed, s (kts) Representative
Group Takeoff Weight Operating UAS
(MGTOW), w Altitude, h (ft.)
(lbs.)
Group 1 0 ≤ w ≤20 h < 1200 AGL 100 Raven (RQ-11),
WASP
Group 2 21≤ w ≤55 h < 3500 AGL s < 250 ScanEagle
Group 3 w < 1320 h < FL 180 s < 250 Shadow (RQ-7B),
Tier II / STUAS
Group 4 w > 1320 h < FL 180 Any Fire Scout (MQ-
8B, RQ-8B),
Predator (MQ-
1A/B), Sky
Warrior ERMP
(MQ-1C)
Group 5 w > 1320 h > FL180 Any Reaper (MQ-9A),
Global Hawk (RQ-
4), BAMS (RQ-
4N)

42
D. Classification of International Public Use UAS
The following subsections provide information on UAS classification from a public use perspective from
organizations outside of the United States.

D.1. North Atlantic Treaty Organization

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is a military alliance of nations. Among other roles, this
organization provides standards for interoperability between military systems, including airworthiness
standards. The NATO airworthiness document ―Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Systems Airworthiness
Requirements‖ [STANAG-4671] does not have a formal classification approach, but does address the
airworthiness requirements for UAS that are fixed-wing, require a human pilot, or weigh between 150 and
20,000 kg. Some topics included in this document are flight, structure, design, construction, powerplant,
equipment, command and control, and control station. It also issues a disclaimer that the listed
requirements may not be sufficient for unconventional, novel, or extremely complex UAS, nor any other
UAS with a design that is significantly different than that of a general aviation aircraft.
NATO has established the Joint Air Power Competence Centre (JAPCC) as a NATO Centre of
Excellence (COE). JAPCC has proposed [JAPCC-2010] the classification approach (see Table 30) for
―[military] services to organize, train, equip, and standardize UAS for optimum employment.‖ It is
unclear if this classification system is used to assign or develop airworthiness requirements.

43
 Table 30. NATO Classification
Class & Category Normal Normal Normal Example
Weight, & Employment Operating Mission Platform
w (kg) Weight4, Altitude, h Radius
w (kg) (ft) (km)

Class I Small Tactical Unit h ≤ 5000 50 (LOS) Luna, Hermes

w < 150 w > 20 kg (employs launch AGL 90
system)
Mini Tactical Unit h ≤ 3000 25 (LOS) ScanEagle,
2 ≤ w ≤ 20 (manual launch) AGL Skylark, Raven,
kg DH3, Aladin,
Strix
Micro Tactical h ≤ 200 5 (LOS) Black Widow
w<2 Patrol/section, AGL
Individual
(single operator)
Class II Tactical Tactical h ≤ 10,000 200 (LOS) Sperwer, Iview
150 ≤w Formation AGL 250, Hermes
≤ 600 450, Aerostar,
Ranger
Class III Strike/ Strategic/ h ≤ 65,000 Unlimited
w > 600 Combat National (BLOS)
HALE Strategic/ h ≤ 65,000 Unlimited Global Hawk
National (BLOS)
MALE20 Operational/ h ≤ 45,000 Unlimited Predator A,
Theater MSL21 (BLOS) Predator B,
Heron, Heron
TP, Hermes
900

D.2. United Kingdom Ministry of Defence – No Approach

The UK ministry of Defence provides [DefStan-970] a policy document that describes acceptable means
to show airworthiness, meaning who should approve that a requirement has been met. The specific
technical requirements of airworthiness are captured in the NATO document [STANAG-4671].

D.3. Israeli Ministry of Defense – No approach

Israel uses UAS as part of their air force. UAS in use include Israeli-developed aircraft such as the Israel
Aerospace Industries’ (IAI) Eitan, IAI Heron, and the Elbit Hermes. No information was found on
classification systems or airworthiness standards.

20
Medium Altitude Long Endurance
21
Mean Sea Level

44
 Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and
Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person
shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To)
01- 02 - 2013 Technical Memorandum
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

Perspectives on Unmanned Aircraft Classification for Civil Airworthiness 5b. GRANT NUMBER
Standards
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

Maddalon, Jeffrey M.; Hayhurst, Kelly, J.; Koppen, Daniel, M.; Upchurch, 5e. TASK NUMBER
Jason M.; Morris, Allan T.; Verstynen, Harry A.
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

425425.04.04.07.02
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER
NASA Langley Research Center
Hampton, VA 23681-2199
L-20232

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA
Washington, DC 20546-0001
11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT
NUMBER(S)
NASA/TM-2013-217969
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Unclassified - Unlimited
Subject Category 03
Availability: NASA CASI (443) 757-5802
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT
The use of unmanned aircraft in the National Airspace System (NAS) has been characterized as the next great step forward in
the evolution of civil aviation. Although use of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in military and public service operations is
proliferating, civil use of UAS remains limited in the United States today. This report focuses on one particular regulatory
challenge: classifying UAS to assign airworthiness standards. This paper provides observations related to how the current
regulations for classifying manned aircraft could apply to UAS.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Aircraft; Airworthiness; Certification; Classification; Remotely Operated; Unmanned

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON
ABSTRACT OF
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE PAGES STI Help Desk (email: help@sti.nasa.gov)
19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)
U U U UU 55 (443) 757-5802
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18

View publication stats