![]()
Aviation stakeholders have voiced their concerns over the FAA's proposed changes to the definition of aeronautical activity to include advanced air mobility and uncrewed aircraft systems. The NBAA, along with other aviation groups, submitted comments on the proposed changes, relaying caution to the FAA that the proposed changes may have unintended consequences and could negatively impact agency oversight, including the Airport Compliance Manual and policies relating to Aeronautical Activity.
The NBAA, Aerospace Industries Association, NATA, U.S. Parachute Association and the Vertical Flight Society submitted comments to the FAA on its proposed rule to change the definition of aeronautical activity to include advanced air mobility and uncrewed aircraft systems. The groups warn that changing the definition could have unintended side effects on FAA oversight. The current definition is "Any activity that involves, makes possible, or is required for the operation of aircraft or that contributes to or is required to the safety of such operations," and already encompasses AAM aircraft. The comments note that the current definition does not discriminate against aircraft by type certification, powerplant, type of propulsion or what fuel is used. AAM aircraft will be used for general, corporate, air taxi and charter operations, which are all included in the current definition.
The comments note that the AAM and UAM aircraft will be operating under the same rules as FAA-certified aircraft currently operating in the national airspace. The groups indicate that the purpose and consequences of adding AAM, but not other types of aircraft, to the definition are uncertain. There is additional concern over the possible implications of adding the terms Advanced Air Mobility and AAM, which are not defined under Part 1 or other statutory definitions. By incorporating these into the FAA Order 5190.6B, there will be added ambiguity and confusion, including how and if the definition of these terms will preclude other regulatory work by the FAA.
Adding Recreational UAS to the definition was said to be unprecedented since the FAA has not differentiated between recreational and non-recreational usage prior. FAA policy and underlying statutes require that all types of aeronautical activities are provided access at obligated airports. The groups worry that the proposal will burden airport sponsors and others involved in deciding whether an activity is recreational or not. This could lead to the possible ban of existing recreational activities at airports beyond UAS and the group feels this exceeds the FAA's authority by depriving statutorily-authorized flight activities from the FAA's protection without any adequate justifications.
"Recreational general aviation is at the core of the US aviation system and has had the opportunity to flourish here like in no other place on the globe largely due to the FAA embracing its importance," the comments said. "The current path for flight training and other disciplines into commercial aviation is through recreational general aviation. Even if unintended, the proposed definition and carve-out of Recreational UAS suggests that the FAA does not appreciate and will not defend the value and necessity of recreational general aviation overall. The FAA should not and cannot take that position."
The groups said they do not support the new inclusion of AAM and UAS in the definition since these are already covered in the existing definition. The letter also states that the groups caution against future revisions to the definition that could value certain activities over others based on their purpose.
"NBAA appreciates that the FAA is taking the initiative to make changes and keep up with the rapidly moving industries of AAM and UAS," said Alex Gertsen, CAM, NBAA's director of airports and ground infrastructure. "While we believe no change is needed in this case, we appreciate being able to explore the need for change and commend the FAA for leading this effort as we advance emerging technologies."