Part 108 Can Unlock BVLOS. Let’s Make Sure It Works For Everyone. 

The FAA’s proposed Part 108 aims to normalize routine Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) flights at scale. Under the current system, operators must apply for waivers under Part 107 - a process that can take up to 90 days. Part 108 seeks to replace this with a scalable, nationwide framework, using a two-tier authorisation system (permits for smaller, less complex operations, and certificates for higher-risk missions) - both under a new airworthiness acceptance process.

DJI commends the FAA’s efforts to establish a framework for scalable UAS BVLOS operations, incorporating risk-based requirements and recognising different use cases. However, several provisions in the current draft rules could work against this goal. A fit-for-purpose approach will allow low-altitude BVLOS operations to grow, unlocking valuable applications in inspection, agriculture, logistics, and public safety nationwide.

An Opportunity To Weigh In

With this in mind, DJI recommends a series of targeted adjustments to ensure the rule is truly scalable, practical, and inclusive:

• [On Eligibility for Airworthiness Acceptance (§ 108.700)] Adopt a standards-based oversight approach to airworthiness acceptance, instead of one tied to country-of-manufacture. As drafted, eligibility is limited to U.S. production or countries with specific bilateral agreements addressing UAS. Today, the U.S. does not have any agreements with other countries that would let foreign drone makers apply for the FAA’s proposed airworthiness acceptance - a key approval needed for Part 108 drone operations. This rule would shut out many proven platforms in the market that operators rely on, including DJI. We recommend that, as an alternative, the FAA focus on mechanisms to review the evidence provided by manufacturers to confirm they meet the industry adopted consensus standards for airworthiness, instead of relying on the proposed oversight approach typical from airworthiness certification.
  
  
• [On Preclusion of 47 CFR Part 15 radios in Category 2 and higher (§ 108.185 (d)(2))] Maintain the permissibility of Part 15 radio links for BVLOS operations. As drafted, drones using 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz radio frequencies for command and control would be barred from operating in Category 2 areas and above - which covers a huge area of interest for UAS operations. Concerns include interference over populated areas, given that Wi-Fi networks use the same frequencies. However, drones have safely flown in VLOS and BVLOS (under waivers) for years, using these bands. Even in urban environments, UAS operators typically have fail-safe systems that maintain flight safety in case of interference, and they can  perform a pre-flight assessment of the radio frequency environment of the operational area. 

If implemented, this rule would have sweeping consequences for the industry, as the vast majority of drones, including DJI, depend on these frequencies, and it remains unclear what feasible and implementable alternatives the FCC would authorise. The impact would be particularly severe for public safety agencies and other service providers, who rely on these drones every day to serve communities and conduct essential operations.

• [On Simplified User Interaction (SUI) requirements (§ 108.810] Balance automation and manual control. Today, most drones are manually flown with remote controllers. As drafted, the proposed rule would only accept drones with a high level of automation, excluding all these existing drones with manual pilot control - even excluding solutions like DJI Dock and FlightHub 2 which add significant automation but utilise “pilot in the loop” architectures.

This would affect the majority of existing drone fleets, including security patrols, Drone-as-First-Responder (DFR), and inspections, as they often require switching between automated flight and manual control - even though there are safety features like flight envelope protection and pre-programmed flight paths already in place.

Part 108 also introduces two new roles: flight coordinator and operations supervisor. These are geared toward highly automated systems such as packaged delivery drones controlled from operations centers, but does not factor in today’s Part 107 waiver-based operations, where manual control has been safely and effectively used.

• [On Low-Risk BVLOS operations] Don’t preclude low-risk BVLOS operations with unnecessary requirements. As drafted, the FAA would add requirements such as SUI, airworthiness acceptance, and strategic deconfliction to operations in Category 3 and above. This would unnecessarily capture many low-risk BVLOS activities, including EVLOS (extended visual line of sight) for which waiver pathways under Part 107 already exist, and shielded operations of interest for several operators including infrastructure inspections, security, and public safety - simply because of how population areas are categorised. These operations are tightly contained within predefined areas and already use mitigations such as access site controls or parachutes, making the additional requirements redundant and costly.

Agricultural operations represent another class of low-risk activity that would be disproportionately burdened under the current draft. These typically involve UAS over 55 lbs, which places them outside of Part 107 and into a separate, lengthy approval process through Part 91 exemptions. Despite this, agricultural operators have demonstrated safe practices and effective risk mitigations. Streamlining authorisation for these operations is therefore warranted, rather than layering on additional requirements that do not materially reduce risk.

Some of these low-risk BVLOS operations would also fall into the Category 4 definition, even when they do not fly over people, forcing them to be required to hold an operating certificate, again pulling in these same low-risk operations even though they pose minimal risk.

We share and support the recommendation advanced through the Pilot Institute’s coalition proposal to take low-risk BVLOS operations out of this framework, and either keep them under Part 107 or isolate them under a separate Part 108 track. Transport Canada offers a good example, authorizing low-risk BVLOS operations without requiring UTM while the national UTM framework is still in development.

• [On Operator reporting requirements 108.145] Don’t require operators to share unnecessary data with manufacturers. Optimise data reporting for safety outcomes instead. As drafted, the FAA would require operators to share all BVLOS flight data with manufacturers. This is unnecessary and burdensome for all parties involved. Instead, we recommend that operators only be required to submit incident or accident information through a tool provided by the manufacturer, which the manufacturer would compile into an annual summary of incidents to share with regulators. This fit-for-purpose approach provides the FAA with the data it needs without requiring unnecessary data flows.
  
  
• [On Area of operations 108.165]  Avoid site-by-site approvals for standardized operations. As drafted, operators would need to apply to the FAA for every site, effectively reverting to the old waiver process rather than delivering the streamlined system Part 108 is supposed to create. For example, shielding operations and drone-in-a-box systems have already been approved for nationwide authorisations under certain conditions. If operators can meet those same conditions, they should be able to fly anywhere in the country, without needing site-by-site approvals.
  
  
• [On 108.115] Keep Part 48 registration available for sub-55 lbs aircraft under Part 108. Before Part 107 was introduced in 2016 (covering VLOS flights up to 55 lbs), the only way to register an aircraft was through Part 47 - a lengthy process designed for traditional aircraft. Alongside Part 107, the FAA created Part 48, a lighter, digital registration system specifically for drones under 55 lbs.

Now, under the proposed Part 108 – which applies to aircraft up to 1,320 lbs (600 kg) – the FAA intends to require Part 47 registration for all aircraft, regardless of weight. The agency argues that because Part 108 requires submission of evidence, Part 48 is insufficient since it cannot accept supporting files. However, the FAA already operates digital systems – such as the UAS Declaration of Compliance portal used for Remote ID and Operations over People – that do allow document uploads. Leveraging such existing platforms would address the stated concern without imposing the more burdensome Part 47 process on sub-55 lbs aircraft. In addition, shifting all registrations to Part 47 would create broader administrative challenges, adding unnecessary complexity for both regulators and operators.

• [On Number of active aircraft 108.455 (b)] Rethink fleet caps. The draft sets concurrent active aircraft limits (for example: ~25 for civic/public-interest permits), which could constrain surge operations during peak periods. We propose tying fleet caps to operator maturity, terrain, and risk mitigations for a wide range of traffic management functions, instead of static, fixed numbers.

We thank the FAA for their continued work in supporting the safe and sustainable growth and development of the drone industry, as well as for the chance to provide our perspective on this important rulemaking. DJI will file a formal submission as part of the process. 

Share Your Perspective 

Thoughtful feedback now will help produce final rules that reflect real-world needs for all stakeholders, protect public safety, and sustain long-term innovation in the industry.

Make your voice heard by October 6, 2025 (Docket FAA-2025-1908). When submitting comments to the proposed rule, it’s most effective to write in your own words. The FAA is looking for perspectives that explain:

• Why it matters to you as a commenter
• How the proposal would affect you if adopted as written
• What would make it better, ideally with a constructive alternative

This way, comments are more meaningful and impactful, especially on complex and technical issues like this one.