Welcome to Lesson 1! In this lesson, you will become familiar with the history behind the use of the UAS. You will also be familiar with the current status of the UAS development. In addition, you will be exposed to the different classes of UAV/UAS according to their size, weight, and missions.

At the end of this lesson, you will have a working knowledge about how the unmanned aerial missions started, the current status and the classes of the UAV/UAS.

Lesson Objectives

At the successful completion of this lesson, you should be able to:

• Explain why aircraft classification is mature for manned aviation but still evolving for UAS.
• Apply common UAS classification approaches based on size, range/endurance, and mission performance.
• Interpret the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) five-group UAS framework.
• Describe civil/commercial UAS classification practices used in industry.
• Treat FAA Part 107 as a regulatory overlay and map operational limitations and waiver pathways to UAS missions.

Lesson Activities

• Study lesson 1 materials on Drupal and the text books chapters assigned to the lesson
• Start your first post for the discussion on "Agreements and Differences in UAS Classification"
• Review Final Project Idea Assignment Details
• Attend the weekly call on Thursday evening at 8:00pm ET
• Study Quiz 1 materials

Over the years, extensive experience with manned aircraft has enabled aviation authorities and industry experts to develop comprehensive and widely recognized systems for classifying these vehicles. In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) categorizes civil aircraft using an organized hierarchy that includes categories, classes, and types—illustrated in Table 1. This well-established structure is fundamental to key functions such as pilot training, certification, and ensuring the safe operation and oversight of aircraft within the National Airspace System.

While the classification system for traditional aircraft types is well-established and consistent, the landscape for UAS is markedly different. In the UAS realm, the rapid pace of technological advancements and the proliferation of diverse applications have led to significant variation in classification approaches among defense, civil, and commercial sectors.

Unlike traditional, piloted aviation, the field of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) lacks a universally recognized classification standard. This absence of global standardization is largely due to the rapid evolution of UAS technologies and their ever-growing spectrum of uses, ranging from military operations to commercial deliveries and recreational activities. As a result, classification approaches can vary significantly across different sectors and regions.

Various organizations and authorities have developed their own frameworks for categorizing UAS. For instance, defense agencies typically rely on structured, performance-based tiers that consider factors such as payload capacity, endurance, and operational ceiling. In contrast, civil aviation authorities and commercial operators often adopt more flexible categories, prioritizing criteria like physical size, operational risk, and the intended mission profile. These differences reflect the unique requirements and priorities of each sector.

Within this course, the terms "UAS" (Unmanned Aircraft System) and "UAS" (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) are used interchangeably for simplicity, although some organizations make distinctions based on system components or operational context.

There are several key parameters commonly used to classify UAS:

• Size and Mass: This includes the physical dimensions and Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW). For reference, Table 2 presents a conceptual size spectrum, ranging from very small (insect-sized, less than 0.5 meters) to large, aircraft-scale systems.
• Range and Endurance: Classifications may take into account how far and how long a UAS can operate without refueling or recharging.
• Operating Altitude and Air Speed: Some systems are designed for low-altitude, slow-speed missions, while others can reach higher altitudes and faster speeds.
• Launch/Recovery Method and Airframe Type: UAS may be hand-launched, catapulted, or require runways, and can feature fixed-wing, rotary-wing, or hybrid airframes.
• Intended Mission and Operating Environment: The mission—such as surveillance, mapping, delivery, or search and rescue—and where the system operates (urban, rural, maritime, etc.) can influence its classification.

As UAS technologies continue to advance, classification schemes are likely to evolve further in response to new capabilities, regulatory changes, and emerging use cases. Stakeholders should consult the latest guidance from relevant authorities and industry groups for up-to-date information on UAS categorization. For further reading, refer to the article "Aircraft Classifications & Regulations" by Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.

Dr. Qassim Abdullah

A common and intuitive approach classifies UAS by physical size. While boundaries vary by source, size is often correlated with payload capability, endurance, launch/recovery infrastructure, and typical mission scope.

Very Small UASs

Very small unmanned aerial vehicles (UASs) encompass platforms ranging from insect-sized constructions up to those measuring approximately 30 to 50 centimeters in length. These UASs are exceptionally lightweight, making them suitable for operations over limited distances. Their compact size allows for diverse design approaches, including flapping-wing mechanisms, rotary-wing structures, and miniature fixed-wing configurations. Flapping-wing UASs excel in maneuverability, enabling them to perform agile movements and even perch or land on restricted surfaces. Rotary-wing variants stand out for their ability to hover steadily, which is especially useful in confined environments or for tasks requiring stationary flight.

Notable examples of very small UASs, Figure 1, include the IAI Malat Mosquito, which features a wingspan of roughly 35 centimeters and can remain airborne for about 40 minutes. Another representative is the Aurora Flight Sciences Skate, with a wingspan close to 60 centimeters and a length of approximately 33 centimeters. Additionally, the Cyber Technology CyberQuad Mini, with its square 42 by 42-centimeter footprint, and the larger CyberQuad Maxi, illustrate the variety in this UAS class. These systems highlight the technological advancements and versatility found within the very small UAS category.

Paul Fahlstrom and Thomas Gleason, 2012, Introduction to UAV Systems, 4th edition, Wiley

Small UASs (Mini-UASs)

Small UASs (often called mini-UASs), Figure 2, typically include platforms with at least one dimension > 50 cm and up to ~2 m. Many are fixed-wing systems and are commonly hand-launched, enabling rapid field deployment without runway infrastructure. Rotary-wing designs are also present in this class, particularly for hovering and confined-area operations.

Representative examples (illustrative):

• RQ-11 Raven (approx. 1 m length; ~1.4 m wingspan).
• Bayraktar mini class systems (approx. 5 kg; data link range ~20 km), Figure 5.
• RQ-7 Shadow, Figure 3.
• AiRanger™ (crossover system spanning small to medium characteristics), Figure 4.

"Woolpert, Inc. woolpert.com"

RQ-7B by US Marines USMC (Public Domain)

American Aerospace

Paul Fahlstrom and Thomas Gleason, 2012, Introduction to UAS Systems, 4th edition, Wiley

Medium UASs

Medium unmanned aerial vehicles (UASs), Figure 6, are characterized by their size and weight, making them unsuitable for transport or launch by a single individual. These UASs are notably larger than small systems but still smaller than typical light manned aircraft. Their wingspans usually fall within the 5-to-10-meter range, and they are capable of carrying payloads that typically weigh between 100 and 200 kilograms. Medium UASs are often deployed for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) missions, which can involve various sensors and communication equipment. Due to their size and operational requirements, these UASs generally need dedicated launch and recovery systems, as well as specialized ground support equipment to facilitate their deployment and retrieval.

Representative examples:

• Hunter (wingspan ~10.2 m; length ~6.9 m; takeoff weight ~885 kg).
• UK Watchkeeper.
• RQ-2 Pioneer; BAE Systems Skyeye R4E; Boeing Eagle Eye.
• RS-20 (crossover small–medium characteristics).

Paul Fahlstrom and Thomas Gleason, 2012, Introduction to UAS Systems, 4th edition, Wiley)

Large UASs

Large UASs, Figure 7, also known as unmanned aerial vehicles, are sizable aircraft-scale platforms designed for missions that require extended endurance and operation at high altitudes. These systems are frequently deployed in scenarios involving combat, surveillance, or intelligence gathering, where their ability to remain airborne for long durations is critical. Due to their substantial size and advanced capabilities, large UASs can function within airspace typically reserved for traditional manned aircraft. They are equipped with state-of-the-art payloads, including sophisticated sensors and targeting equipment, as well as robust long-range communication systems, enabling them to carry out complex and demanding operations over vast distances.

Representative examples:

• MQ-1 Predator A.
• MQ-9 Predator B (Reaper).
• RQ-4 Global Hawk (including NASA variants), Figure 8.

Paul Fahlstrom and Thomas Gleason, 2012, Introduction to UAS Systems, 4th edition, Wiley

NASA

Another commonly used approach classifies UASs by their operating radius (range) and time aloft (endurance). This is particularly common in military contexts because range/endurance are closely tied to mission capability and logistics.

Very Low-Cost, Close-Range UASs

Very low-cost, close-range Unmanned Aerial Systems (UASs) represent the most accessible tier of drone technology, designed for missions that require limited operational radius and short flight durations. These platforms typically offer an operational range of approximately 5 kilometers from their launch point, making them suitable for tasks within a confined geographic area. Their endurance is modest, generally allowing them to remain airborne for about 20 to 45 minutes per flight, which is adequate for brief reconnaissance, surveillance, or data collection missions.

As of 2024, the cost of these UASs is estimated to be around $12,000, positioning them as an economical solution for organizations or agencies with constrained budgets. This affordability makes them particularly attractive for entry-level users, training applications, or routine operations where the deployment of more sophisticated and expensive UAS platforms would be impractical or unnecessary.

Despite their low cost, these systems incorporate technology and features comparable in sophistication to advanced model aircraft, such as the Raven and Dragon Eye. They are typically equipped with lightweight airframes, basic autopilot systems, and simple sensor payloads—often including standard-definition cameras for visual observation. While they may lack the advanced capabilities of larger or longer-range drones, their ease of use, rapid deployment, and minimal logistical requirements make them highly effective for quick-response scenarios.

Very low-cost, close-range UASs are commonly used in military, law enforcement, and civilian applications where short-range aerial oversight is needed. Examples include tactical reconnaissance, perimeter security, search and rescue in localized areas, and environmental monitoring over small sites. Their compact size and straightforward operation allow operators to launch and recover these drones with minimal equipment and training, further enhancing their utility in field operations where agility and cost-effectiveness are priorities.

Overall, these UAS platforms provide a practical balance between affordability and functionality, enabling a wide range of users to leverage unmanned aerial technology for essential tasks within a limited operational envelope.

Close-Range UASs

Close-range Unmanned Aerial Systems (UASs) are designed to operate at distances of up to approximately 50 kilometers from their launch point. These platforms generally offer endurance ranging from 1 to 6 hours, allowing for extended operations compared to very low-cost, close-range systems. Close-range UASs are especially valuable for missions that require reliable performance over a moderate area and time frame, such as tactical reconnaissance and surveillance.

In military applications, these UASs are often deployed to gather real-time intelligence, monitor troop movements, or provide situational awareness for ground units. Their relatively longer endurance and increased range make them suitable for tasks that demand more persistent observation than very low-cost systems can provide, yet do not require the extensive coverage of short-range or mid-range platforms.

Close-range UASs typically feature advanced sensors, including high-resolution cameras and sometimes infrared or multispectral imaging equipment, enabling them to operate effectively both day and night. Their compact size and ease of deployment make them ideal for rapid response scenarios, where timely information is critical to mission success. Furthermore, these systems are often used in law enforcement, border patrol, disaster response, and environmental monitoring, supporting operations that benefit from aerial oversight but do not necessitate the capabilities of larger, more expensive UASs.

Examples of close-range UASs include platforms like the ScanEagle and Puma. These systems balance affordability, reliability, and operational flexibility, making them a popular choice for both military and civilian agencies seeking effective aerial solutions within a limited operational radius.

Short-Range UASs

Short-range Unmanned Aerial Systems (UASs) are designed to operate at distances of approximately 150 kilometers or greater from their launch point, offering a significant increase in operational scope compared to close-range platforms. These systems typically feature endurance capabilities ranging from 8 to 12 hours, enabling them to conduct missions over extended periods without the need for frequent recovery and relaunch. Such endurance and range make short-range UASs highly suitable for a variety of demanding applications.

In military and security contexts, short-range UASs are commonly deployed for reconnaissance and surveillance missions that require persistent monitoring over larger geographic areas. Their ability to remain airborne for up to half a day allows for continuous data collection, supporting real-time intelligence gathering, target tracking, and situational awareness for commanders and decision-makers. These platforms are equipped with advanced sensor suites, such as high-resolution electro-optical and infrared cameras, synthetic aperture radar, and communication relay systems, which enhance their utility in both day and night operations and under diverse weather conditions.

Beyond defense applications, short-range UASs are also valuable in civilian roles, including border security, search and rescue operations, environmental monitoring, and infrastructure inspection. Their extended range and endurance make them effective for covering wide areas, such as coastlines, forests, or remote industrial sites, where ground access may be limited or time-consuming. The robust design of these UASs often includes features for autonomous navigation, automated takeoff and landing, and secure data transmission, ensuring reliable performance during critical missions.

Examples of short-range UASs include platforms like the Hermes 450 and the RQ-7 Shadow, both of which are widely used by military and government agencies around the world. These systems offer a balance of operational flexibility, payload capacity, and mission duration, making them an essential asset for organizations that require sustained aerial observation and rapid deployment capabilities within a regional operational theater.

Mid-Range UASs

Mid-range Unmanned Aerial Systems (UASs) are advanced platforms specifically engineered to operate at distances of up to approximately 650 kilometers from their launch point. These high-speed systems are designed with the capability to cover substantial geographic areas, making them highly effective for missions that require both extended range and rapid deployment. Thanks to their powerful propulsion systems and aerodynamic designs, mid-range UASs can achieve greater speeds than close- and short-range counterparts, allowing for timely arrival at target locations and swift execution of mission objectives.

The endurance of mid-range UASs typically ranges from 12 to 24 hours, enabling them to sustain operations over lengthy periods without the need for frequent recovery. This extended operational window is especially valuable for missions involving continuous reconnaissance, persistent surveillance, and the collection of meteorological data across vast territories. Equipped with sophisticated sensor payloads—including high-resolution electro-optical cameras, infrared imaging devices, synthetic aperture radar, and atmospheric monitoring instruments—these platforms can gather comprehensive intelligence under diverse environmental conditions, both day and night.

In military contexts, mid-range UASs are frequently deployed to support battlefield surveillance, target acquisition, and intelligence gathering over regional theaters of operation. Their ability to transmit real-time data to command centers enhances situational awareness and improves decision-making during dynamic scenarios. Additionally, these systems are increasingly utilized for civilian applications, such as monitoring severe weather events, mapping environmental changes, and supporting disaster response efforts where rapid assessment over large areas is required.

Mid-range UASs often incorporate advanced features like autonomous navigation, automated takeoff and landing, secure communications, and multi-mission payload versatility. Their robust design and flexible operational profiles make them essential assets for organizations seeking aerial solutions that balance speed, range, and endurance. Notable examples within this category include platforms such as the MQ-9 Reaper and Heron, which are widely adopted by military and governmental agencies for their reliability and mission adaptability.

Endurance UASs

Endurance Unmanned Aerial Systems (UASs) represent a class of aerial platforms specifically engineered for missions requiring exceptional operational longevity and broad area coverage. These systems are capable of remaining airborne for up to approximately 36 hours without the need for refueling or recovery, making them ideally suited for persistent surveillance and intelligence-gathering operations. With a working radius of about 300 kilometers from their launch point, endurance UASs can effectively monitor vast regions, including remote or challenging environments that may be inaccessible or impractical for manned aircraft.

Endurance UASs typically operate at altitudes reaching up to 30,000 feet, allowing them to conduct long-duration reconnaissance missions above adverse weather conditions and outside the range of many ground-based threats. This high operational ceiling, combined with advanced avionics and robust propulsion systems, enables these platforms to maintain stable flight profiles and gather high-quality data over extended periods.

Equipped with state-of-the-art sensor suites—including multi-spectral cameras, synthetic aperture radar, signals intelligence packages, and secure communication relays—endurance UASs are indispensable for both military and civilian applications. In defense contexts, they are primarily deployed for strategic surveillance, border patrol, and target tracking missions, where continuous situational awareness and real-time intelligence are critical for informed decision-making. Their ability to loiter for prolonged periods ensures uninterrupted monitoring of areas of interest, supporting early warning systems and enhancing operational security.

In addition to military roles, endurance UASs are increasingly utilized in civilian sectors for applications such as maritime patrol, disaster response coordination, environmental monitoring, and infrastructure inspection. Their long endurance and extensive working radius make them valuable assets for tracking weather patterns, assessing damage following natural disasters, or conducting resource management surveys over large, remote territories.

The integration of autonomous navigation, automated takeoff and landing capabilities, and redundant safety systems further enhances the reliability and operational efficiency of endurance UASs. These features minimize crew workload and reduce operational risks, ensuring that missions can be conducted safely and effectively even in complex or dynamic environments. As technology continues to advance, endurance UASs are expected to play an increasingly vital role in supporting a wide range of long-duration aerial operations across both governmental and commercial domains.

The United States Department of Defense (DoD) organizes Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UASs) into five distinct groups, as illustrated in Table 3 and Figure 9. This classification is determined by several key criteria: the system’s maximum gross takeoff weight (MGTW), its typical operating altitude, and its air speed. Importantly, if a UAS possesses any attribute that falls within a higher group—such as exceeding the MGTW, flying at a higher altitude, or reaching a greater airspeed—it is assigned to that higher classification group, regardless of its other characteristics. This tiered approach ensures each UAS is categorized according to its most advanced operational capability.

*AGL = Above Ground Level; MSL = Mean Sea Level. Source: U.S. Army Roadmap for UAS 2010–2035 (as cited in the course notes).

Credit: CREDIT_HERE

Summary

We have now concluded the materials for Lesson 1, which walked us through the early history of UAS development. As is the case with most emerging modern technologies, we find the US defense program behind UAS development and its introduction to the civilian market. In addition, we learned about the different classifications for UAS. We also learned about the current status and the different applications of UAS.

One thing I would like to emphasize here is the fact that there is no single civilian owner of a large size UAS (such as the one used by the military, which is the size of a Boeing 737). In other words, there is a large gap between the size and sophistication of UAS used by the military and the ones used by civilians, which are characterized by smaller size and lesser sophistication. I believe that the reason behind this gap is strict regulation surrounding the operation of UAS in the National Airspace (NAS). Such a gap will diminish once civilian UAS has access to the NAS.

As for this lesson’s readings, try to read as much as you can through the materials available on the Internet, as it is a great resource. There is no one good textbook available so far on the subject. That is why I recommend buying, if you can, the two supplementary references listed under the course requirements in addition to the designated textbook.

(Note: Unless it is an online quiz or assignment, all deliverables should be organized and submitted in a Word document. Figures should be scanned and inserted in the document.)

Final Tasks

Unlike the military sector, which primarily organizes unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) based on mission profiles, operational altitude, and platform capabilities, the civil and commercial arenas employ a different set of criteria for classification. These non-military sectors focus heavily on practical concerns, reflecting the diverse nature of UAS applications in business, research, public safety, and recreation. Rather than concentrating on combat missions or strategic roles, civil and commercial classification emphasizes how the UAS is actually used in real-world settings.

Key factors in these classifications include the method of deployment, the payload capacity, and the intended business or operational application. For example, a UAS designed for aerial photography will have different payload and operational requirements than one designed for package delivery or infrastructure inspection. In addition, regulatory considerations play a crucial role, shaping the boundaries between different categories of UAS. These regulations often dictate aspects such as maximum allowable weight, operational restrictions, and safety requirements, which in turn influence how manufacturers and operators classify their systems.

Although there is no single, universally accepted standard for UAS classification within the commercial and civil sectors, several conventions have become widely adopted by industry stakeholders. One of the most prevalent is classification based on maximum takeoff weight (MTOW), which directly correlates with both the risk profile of the aircraft and the regulatory requirements it must meet. This approach makes it simpler for operators to determine the appropriate usage scenarios, training needs, and compliance obligations for each type of UAS.

Over time, these conventions have evolved to reflect the rapid growth and diversification of UAS technology. Industry groups, manufacturers, and regulators have worked together to define categories such as micro, small, and large UAS, with each class serving specific niches within the broader market. These categories help facilitate safe integration into the national airspace, support regulatory compliance, and guide the development of new business models and technological innovations.

In summary, civil and commercial UAS classification is characterized by its focus on practical deployment, payload, business application, and regulatory compliance. The absence of a single universal standard has led to the development of several broadly recognized conventions that shape the way UAS are designed, operated, and regulated in industry practice.

6.1 Weight-Class Conventions Used in Commercial Practice

In the commercial sector, the classification of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) relies heavily on the maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) as the principal criterion. This approach is widely adopted because MTOW is a critical determinant of an aircraft's potential kinetic energy, which directly impacts the risk it poses to people and property in the event of an accident. Furthermore, MTOW serves as a practical metric for aligning UAS with various regulatory frameworks, as most aviation authorities use weight thresholds to define operational categories and associated safety requirements.

Industry standards have established several distinct weight-based categories to help manufacturers, operators, and regulators clearly differentiate between types of UAS, Table 4. One of the most commonly recognized categories is the micro-class, which includes drones that weigh less than 250 grams (approximately 0.55 pounds). These micro-class UAS are designed to be extremely lightweight and portable, making them ideal for indoor operations, close-range inspections, educational purposes, and as training platforms. Due to their low mass, micro-class drones generally present minimal risk and are often subject to fewer regulatory restrictions, especially when operated in controlled environments.

The next category is the small UAS (sUAS), defined by an MTOW of less than 55 pounds (25 kilograms). This category represents the dominant class of commercial drones and encompasses a wide range of applications, including aerial mapping, photogrammetry, infrastructure inspection, agriculture, environmental monitoring, and public safety missions such as search and rescue or incident response. The 55-pound threshold aligns with key regulatory definitions, such as those established by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) under Part 107, which sets the operational and certification requirements for small unmanned aircraft in the United States.

UAS that exceed the 55-pound (25-kilogram) MTOW threshold are classified as large UAS. These systems are typically more complex, capable of carrying heavier payloads, and suited for specialized commercial or industrial applications such as long-endurance surveillance, cargo delivery, or infrastructure development. Due to the increased risks associated with their size and capabilities, large UAS are subject to more stringent operational restrictions, certification procedures, and oversight by aviation authorities. Operators of large UAS must often demonstrate advanced pilot qualifications, implement comprehensive safety management systems, and adhere to additional airspace integration requirements.

By using MTOW as the primary basis for classification, the commercial UAS industry is able to standardize risk assessments, streamline regulatory compliance, and facilitate the safe integration of drones into national and international airspace systems. These conventions also provide clear guidance for manufacturers during product development and for end-users when selecting platforms that best match their operational needs and compliance obligations.

Airframe-Based Categories Relevant to Commercial Operations

Commercial UAS operators frequently categorize platforms by airframe type due to its significant impact on operational capabilities such as endurance, launch and recovery methods, payload stability, and overall mapping workflow. For example, multirotor drones are characterized by their vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) abilities and exceptional maneuverability, making them ideal for close-range inspections and mapping smaller areas. In contrast, fixed-wing drones deliver superior endurance and can efficiently cover larger expanses, which makes them well-suited for corridor mapping and extensive survey missions. Hybrid VTOL airframes blend the advantages of vertical takeoff and landing with the efficient cruising performance of fixed-wing designs, enabling operations in settings where traditional runway infrastructure is unavailable or limited.

Mission-Driven Categories in Geospatial Workflows

Within geospatial mapping applications, how unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) are classified tends to revolve around the specific requirements of each mission rather than relying on fixed categories. Operators generally base their platform choices on several mission-critical factors, including the target ground sampling distance (GSD), the size of the area to be mapped, expected flight duration, the type of sensor payload needed (such as RGB, multispectral, thermal, or LiDAR sensors), and the desired level of mapping accuracy. As a result, commercial operators often approach classification as a flexible, decision-based process, adapting their selections to the unique demands of each project, instead of adhering to a strict or static taxonomy.

The FAA's Part 107 rule governs routine, civil (non-recreational) operations of small unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) within the United States. Rather than serving as a classification system for UAS based on attributes like size, range, or endurance, Part 107 acts as a regulatory framework layered on top of existing engineering categories. This means that while manufacturers and operators may classify drones by their physical and performance characteristics, Part 107 imposes additional operational constraints, Table 5, on how these aircraft can be used within the National Airspace System. Specifically, Part 107 applies to "small unmanned aircraft," which are defined as any unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds (25 kg) at takeoff, including all components and payloads attached to the aircraft.

Waivers and Authorizations: Expanding the Operating Envelope

Under FAA Part 107, operators can apply for waivers that permit unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) to conduct missions that exceed standard regulatory limits—such as flying at night, operating over people, or beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS). Additionally, operations within controlled airspace require prior authorization from the FAA. The waiver application process is designed to ensure that applicants present robust risk mitigation strategies and detailed procedural controls, demonstrating their ability to maintain the highest safety standards during expanded operations, Figure 10.

CONOPS

When conducting geospatial mapping and photogrammetry with unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), selecting the appropriate platform involves balancing multiple factors. These include the engineering class of the aircraft (such as its size and flight endurance), the type and capabilities of the onboard sensors, and the required accuracy for the mission. All of these considerations must be aligned with FAA Part 107 regulatory requirements and the specific airspace environment of the site.

• For large-area mapping, fixed-wing UAS are often more efficient due to their longer endurance. However, these missions may be restricted by visual line of sight (VLOS) limitations, potentially necessitating segmented flight planning or securing a Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) waiver.
• Multirotor platforms excel at capturing high-resolution data over smaller areas and offer greater maneuverability for precise coverage. However, they may require several flights and frequent battery changes to achieve full area coverage.
• When operating near critical infrastructure or within controlled airspace, operators must obtain FAA preflight authorizations and implement robust procedural controls, regardless of the UAS platform used, to ensure regulatory compliance and safety.

References and Suggested Reading

• Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) Regulations (Part 107) overview page.
• Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR). 14 CFR Part 107—Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (definitions and operating rules).
• FAA. Part 107 Waivers guidance page.

To Read

1. Chapter 2, of textbook 2, Introduction to UAS Systems (Aerospace Series)
2. Crouch, C. Integration of Mini-UASs at the Tactical Operations Level: Implications of Operations, Implementation, and Information Sharing

To Do

1. Read the paper “Unmanned Aircraft Systems in Remote Sensing and Scientific Research: Classification and Considerations of Use by Watts, et al”. Highlight agreements and differences in the UAS classifications system between the one adopted in the paper and the one given in this lesson. Post your opinion in the discussion forum for Lesson 1. Respond to at least one posting from your peers. (3 points)