The comment period for the FAA’s proposed Part 108 rule — the most significant update to commercial drone regulations in over a decade — closed on October 6, 2025. In the time between the proposed rule was released in August 2025 and now, roughly 2,000 public comments have been committed. Now, the final rule is in the agency’s hands. And if there’s one thing that’s crystal clear from reading through them, it’s this: the drone (and broader aviation) community is far from united on what safe BVLOS operations should look like.
Published in August 2025 under Executive Order 14307 “Unleashing American Drone Dominance,” Part 108 represents the FAA’s ambitious attempt to finally enable routine Beyond Visual Line of Sight operations without requiring operators to jump through the waiver process. But as the comments reveal, getting there is going to require threading a very complicated needle.
The DJI elephant in the room
Perhaps the most surprising trend in the comments wasn’t about operational safety at all — it was about DJI.
Hundreds of commenters, from disabled veterans to small business owners to senior citizens, submitted passionate pleas asking the FAA not to exclude DJI drones from Part 108 operations. I dug into this last week, but the crux is that the current rules include a provision that would restrict a key approval to either drones made in America or otherwise made in countries with “a Bilateral Airworthiness Agreement addressing UAS” (which would very likely exclude Chinese-made drones).
Comments ranged from recreational users worried about their investments to professional operators warning that removing DJI from BVLOS eligibility would devastate their businesses.
“DJI drones are the best available. There are no drones currently made by American manufacturers that even come close to the feature set and reliability that are found in DJI drones,” wrote one commenter named Richard Lutz, echoing a sentiment repeated throughout the docket.
Those comments refer to everything from cheap camera drones like the DJI Flip and DJI Neo to more robust DJI enterprise drones like the Matrice series.
David Whitehouse, owner of Aerial-Inspection LLC which is a search and rescue company that uses drones to find lost pets, was more direct. “To exclude the safest and most reliable aircraft available today will increase accidents with BVLOS operation and endanger people and property…and drive me out of business,” he said.
The irony? Part 108 doesn’t actually mention DJI by name. But the specter of potential Chinese drone restrictions clearly loomed large in commenters’ minds, with many conflating the BVLOS rule with broader national security concerns.
The right-of-way controversy
If DJI dominated the quantity of comments, right-of-way provisions dominated the quality — particularly from the crewed aviation community.
The proposed rule’s approach to right-of-way sparked fierce opposition from helicopter operators, agricultural pilots and general aviation pilots who operate below 400 feet AGL. Their concern centers on provisions that would give drones conditional right-of-way in certain scenarios, particularly in “shielded operations” near structures.
Terry Blakemore, CEO of Quantum Helicopters, didn’t mince words: “Each year, we fly around 13,000 hours of student training. Each of these young men and women will have their lives put unnecessarily at risk if your proposed right of way provisions go into effect.”
The criticism focused on several interconnected issues: Part 108 drones can weigh up to 1,320 pounds (nearly the size of a Robinson R22 helicopter), the rule prohibits UAS from transmitting ADS-B Out (making them invisible to manned aircraft equipment), and current detect-and-avoid technology is primarily forward-looking and doesn’t reliably detect aircraft from all directions.
“I’ve had two near misses with drones already, and in both cases I couldn’t get up with the operators,” wrote Chuck Travis, an aerial applicator who says he has 33 years of experience. “I hate to say but it’s going to take somebody getting killed before the government realizes this won’t work.”
Even non-pilots raised concerns. Tana Satterfield, who works as ground and chase crew for hot air balloon operators in Albuquerque, questioned how the rule would protect the 70+ balloons that fly in her area weekly when ADS-B hasn’t been developed for balloons yet.
What people actually liked
Not every comment was negative. Several themes emerged from supportive commenters:
Public safety operators appreciated the potential but wanted explicit carve-outs for emergency operations. Multiple law enforcement agencies emphasized they need the ability to launch small drones like the DJI M4T “at a moment’s notice” for fugitive apprehension, missing persons searches and tactical overwatch. These are operations that require pilot control throughout, not full autonomy.
Delivery advocates saw Part 108 as essential infrastructure. Carlo Capua, former Chief of Strategy and Innovation for Fort Worth, Texas, emphasized the public benefit for delivery drones, which have proliferated especially in the Dallas Fort Worth area with options including Wing’s partnership with Walmart.
“Every drone delivery means one more car off the road,” he said. “This means fewer traffic accidents and potential fatalities, as well as less traffic and carbon emissions.”
Security professionals wanted their unique operational needs acknowledged. Ryan Smith, Founder and President of Titan Protection, wrote: “We operate 24/7 in controlled environments. We respond to threats in real-time. We protect critical infrastructure. These operational realities require different capabilities than package delivery or agricultural monitoring.”
The small operator squeeze
A recurring complaint was that Part 108, as written, seems designed primarily for large, well-funded operations running fully autonomous systems. Many have suggested it’s less beneficial to the Part 107 operators who’ve been safely conducting limited BVLOS operations under waivers for years.
“The NPRM as drafted focuses exclusively on complex, fully autonomous BVLOS operations, heavy cargo carriers, last mile delivery, and multi-drone operations such as light shows,” one commenter noted. “It does not adequately address the wide range of BVLOS operations already conducted safely and effectively under Part 107 waivers.”
David Whitehouse put it bluntly: “To exclude aircraft controlled by an actual FAA licensed pilot and only include automated systems unfairly handicaps businesses like mine who can not cover the ridiculously high costs of these systems.”
What happens next
Now comes the hard part: the FAA must review all these comments, address substantive concerns, and finalize the rule by February 2026. That’s a deadline mandated by Executive Order 14307.
The agency faces some genuinely difficult decisions. How do you enable innovation and economic growth while protecting helicopter pilots training for search and rescue missions? How do you accommodate both billion-dollar delivery companies and small inspection businesses? How do you write technology-neutral regulations when commenters are demanding specific manufacturers either be included or excluded?
The FAA will need to either defend its proposed right-of-way provisions with compelling safety data or revise them to address aviation community concerns. It will need to clarify how (or whether) Part 108 interacts with national security restrictions on certain drone manufacturers. And it will need to decide whether the rule should focus on enabling large autonomous operations or provide a practical path for the thousands of existing Part 107 operators.
One thing is certain: whatever the final rule looks like, not everyone is going to be happy. The question is whether the FAA can find a middle path that advances BVLOS operations without sacrificing the safety that’s made U.S. airspace the safest in the world.
The clock is ticking. February 2026 is just four months away.
The post Part 108 public comments are in — and the aviation community is deeply divided appeared first on The Drone Girl.