This document proposes a standardized approach to using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in Colorado emergency management. It discusses the current regulatory environment for UAVs and examples of UAV use by other states' emergency response agencies. The document advocates for Colorado to develop an incident command system to integrate UAVs into emergency response. This would include typing systems to categorize UAVs based on size and capabilities as well as defining positions like UAV Supervisor. The goal is to provide guidelines allowing first responders to safely and effectively use UAVs when needed.

1. Proposal for a
Standardized Approach to UAVs in
Colorado Emergency Management
FRANCIS SONG,
ALAMOSA COUNTY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR

2. OVERVIEW
Current National and State “UAS Climate”
The Case for UAV with Colorado
 UAV with Utah DPS
 UAV with Nevada DPS
ICS-style Typing and Categorization of UAS
Example of ICS Integration and Position Titles
UAV Acquisition Considerations for your Agency
Caveats

3. PREMISE (Nationwide)
Unmanned Aircraft Systems/Vehicles [UAS/V] usage has increased exponentially on the national scene over the
past decade. While initially only highlighted in media outlets as assets assigned to the Department of Defense
(DOD), unmanned aircraft are now being constructed and marketed with commercial, private, and non-DOD
government users in mind.
The regulatory agency tasked with control over the National Airspace System (NAS), the FAA, has been
disappointing in providing federal guidance on the usage, control, restriction, and operation of UAS within the
NAS. While FAA guidance exists on different levels, they largely fail to explain how UAVs are to be operated
within the NAS.
In the absence of federal guidance many states, counties, and municipalities have taken it upon themselves to
regulate, restrict, and otherwise dictate how UAVs are to be operated within their respective jurisdictions.
Several states have set up task forces to determine the level of operation of UAS permitted, while other states
have attempted to prohibit UAV usage altogether (i.e. CA).
The FAA has set a self-imposed goal of fully articulating/explaining/ensuring UAV usage within the NAS, to be in
conjunction with the implementation of the Next Generation Airspace System. However, several key
checkpoints have been missed.

4. PREMISE (Nationwide)
Pulaski County OEM (in VA) purchased a DGI Phantom III for its SAR Management Team (10212015).
[http://www.southwesttimes.com/2015/10/emergency-services-adds-drone-to-its-arsenal/]
As of 10012015, NV has tasked their Department of Public Safety to be the “agency of contact” for
registration of UAVs operated for public agency usage (See AB 239)
[http://dps.nv.gov/resources/Unmanned_Aerial_Vehicle/]
See Section 9.a.3. of latest FAA Policy regarding UAS operations, dated 10272015. “Emergency COA
(ECOA). The FAA must ensure procedures are available to accommodate real-time applications that will
directly support emergency and law enforcement-type operations. When a public proponent needs an
ECOA for a quick response event (i.e. police operation, natural disaster, etc.) the request is made directly to
the FAA Systems Operation Security, AJR-2. Emergency UAS COAs will not be considered for demonstration
flights, flights to test capabilities or training.”

5. PREMISE (Nationwide)
NPRM 107
 Outlines expectations of sUAS.
 Congressional mandate came out in 2012; NPRM 107 released 02152015.
 Provides for a method to have sUAS operate within NAS, with exception of Class A Airspace.
 “The FAA has accommodated non-recreational small UAS use through various mechanisms, such as special
airworthiness certificates, exemptions, and certificates of waiver or authorization (COA). This proposed rule would
be the next phase of integrating small UAS into the NAS. The following are examples of possible small UAS
operations that could be conducted under this proposed framework: […]”
 Aiding certain rescue operations such as locating snow avalanche victims;
 Aerial photography;
 Look to June/July 2016!

6. PREMISE (Statewide)
Colorado was not selected to be a FAA-approved UAV test site. However, industry leaders took it upon
themselves to proceed with the advancement of UAV technology, particularly to serve the interests of
Colorado technological advancement, pioneering, and economic development.
There are many organizations that serve as “forums” for entrepreneurial, start-up companies located
throughout the State of Colorado. Some, like UAS Colorado, are non-profit while some, like Rocky
Mountain UAS, are for-profit.
Colorado (as a state) has yet to pass legislation related to UAV usage. In contrast, several states, as
previously mentioned, have attempted to pass legislation on their own accord.
Mesa County Sheriff’s Department has an internal UAV Team that utilizes two unmanned aircraft models.
The current agreement between Mesa County and the FAA approves most UAV operations throughout
Mesa County in daylight.

7. WHY UAVs for CDPS?
UAVs have only just begun to enter to civilian, commercial, non-governmental markets. Much of the
momentum comes in fact, from entrepreneurial, “start-up” manufacturers, NOT established aerospace
defense agencies.
UAVs are already heavily marketed with public safety, emergency management users in mind as the
primary non-DOD, governmental operators. The different kinds of sensors available, in conjunction with
their portability and lightweight characteristics, make it easy for UAVs to become flying sensors.
Some UAV manufacturers already utilize the “modular sensor” concept in their designs. For example, the
UAV is considered to be more of a delivery system for sensors that fit in standardized compartment
modules. This way, sensors of different types can be employed and swapped out rapidly.

8. WHY UAVs for CDPS?
UAVs can be employed by CDPS in the following examples:
 If a communications / cell tower goes down, UAVs with cell phone repeaters can be tasked with orbiting an area in
shifts to maintain communications until the tower is repaired.
 In the event of a Search and Rescue mission, a UAV could be employed with appropriate sensors (thermal imaging,
infrared, electro-optical) to assist rescue teams. Depending on the size of the search grid, several UAVs could
theoretically be employed simultaneously to help locate the missing person.
 In the event of a wildfire, UAVs could orbit over the wildfire to maintain long-term imagery of the behavior of the
wildfire. UAV aerial firefighting would exclude actual usage of water or flame retardant for the time being since most
commercial/civilian UAVs (currently) do not have that capacity.
 In the event of a law enforcement situation, UAVs could be used to take snapshots of accidents, crime scenes, or
other situations where time is of the essence (Side Note: Mesa County Sheriff’s Office currently fields UAVs and would
prove to be a great case study of incorporating ESF-13).
 In order to better assist LEPCs, UAVs could be utilized to inspect areas that would otherwise be dangerous for human
beings to enter. Similar to the idea behind “bomb squad robots”, these UAVs could be designed to be expendable in
the first place, and therefore destroyed after usage in order to prevent contamination.
 UAVs could airdrop critical supplies to people in areas that are otherwise dangerous to enter or otherwise
inaccessible.

9. UAV with UT DPS
Utah Division of Emergency Management (DEM) owns 1x DJI Phantom with GoPro Hero 3
UT DEM maintains reports of UAV missions and running counter of flight time
Website assists UT public agencies with COA registration process
Source: UT DEM (Feb. 2016)

10. UAV with NV DPS
Nevada AB 239 tasks NV DPS with accountability and registration of all Nevada public agency-owned UAV
Delegated to NV Division of Emergency Management (DEM)
Source: NV DPS (Feb. 2016)

11. CURRENT TYPING for FIRE AVIATION (RW)
Source: Interagency Helicopter Operations Guide (Feb. 2013)

12. CURRENT TYPING for FIRE AVIATION (FW)
Source: Interagency Aerial Supervision Guide (Jan. 2014)

13. CURRENT TYPING for MILITARY UAS
Source: DOD UAS Airspace Integration Plan (Mar. 2011)
Group 1: Typically hand-launched, self contained, portable systems employed for a small unit or base security. They are capable of providing “over the hill” or
“around the corner” reconnaissance and surveillance. They operate within visual range and are analogous to radio-controlled model airplanes as covered in AC
91-57.30 .
Group 2: Small to medium in size and usually support brigade and intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and target acquisition requirements. They usually
operate from unimproved areas and launched via catapult. Payloads may include a sensor ball with electro-optic / infrared (EO/IR) and laser range
finder/designator (LRF/D) capability. They typically perform special purpose operations or routine operations within a specific set of restrictions.
Group 3: Operate at medium altitudes with medium to long range and endurance. Their payloads may include a sensor ball with EO/IR, LRF/D, signal intelligence
(SIGINT), communications relay, and chemical biological radiological nuclear explosive (CBRNE) detection. They usually operate from unimproved areas and may
not require an improved runway.
Group 4: Relatively large UAS that operate at medium to high altitudes and have extended range and endurance. They normally require improved areas for
launch and recovery, beyond line-of-sight (BLOS) communications, and have stringent airspace operations requirements. Payloads may include EO/IR sensors,
radars, lasers, communications relay, SIGINT, Automatic Identification System (AIS), and weapons.
Group 5: Include the largest systems, operate at medium to high altitudes, and have the greatest range, endurance, and airspeed capabilities. They require
improved areas for launch and recovery, BLOS communications, and the most stringent airspace operations requirements. Group 5 UAS perform specialized
missions such as broad area surveillance and penetrating attacks.

14. CURRENT TYPING for MILITARY UAS
Source: DOD UAS Airspace Integration Plan (Mar. 2011)

15. UAS TYPING CONSIDERATIONS
Typing Definitions need to be agreed upon, codified, and utilized
Simplest Terms (small vs. not-small UAS)
Interagency Board
Span of Control 1:1
Sensor Imagery
 Potential for Aerial Resupply, Airdrop

16. Micro UAS (μUAS)

17. <55 lbs UAS (sUAS)

18. >55 lbs UAS

19. PROPOSED ICS INTEGRATION
Air Ops Branch
(Director)
Operations
Branch
Manned Air Group
(Supervisor)
Unmanned Air Group
(Supervisor)
UAV A Strike Team
UAV B Task Force

20. PROPOSED TERMS FOR ICS POSITIONS
Standardized Terms
 UAS Pilot / Operator
 Reinforces the fact that UAVs are still aircraft/aerodynes.
 FAA may lean to term “UAS Operator” for sUAS.
 Pilot or Operator differentiation can indicate different categories.
 UAS Sensor Operator
 When the operation of a UAS is such that piloting and imagery are divided into separate duties in order to maintain safe span of control.
 UAS Aircrew
 Designated personnel who are active in the piloting, navigation, de-confliction or other system operation of unmanned aircraft.
 UAS Visual Observer
 Spotter or Visual Observer (VO) trained to maintain line of sight with UAS and report on deviations from behavior.
 NPRM 107 does not require VO but UAS would have to remain within Line of Sight (LOS).

21. BEFORE YOU BUY YOUR UAV!
Current DHS AEL (as of 7 May 2015) has following line items:
 03OE-07-SUAS [System, Small Unmanned Aircraft]
(Remotely piloted aircraft (now referred to as Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, or sUAS) that support
various public safety missions, such as tactical law enforcement operations, search & rescue, and
surveillance/detection. Includes fixed or rotary-wing aircraft, and a controller ground station. Size ranges
from hand-launchable to aircraft requiring a takeoff/landing area. See Item 03OE-07-UPGD for accessories
and upgrades. Note: Previous item 03OE-07-RPVS has been replaced by 03OE-07-ROVL (for land vehicles)
and 03OE-07-SUAS (for aircraft systems)
Eligible FEMA Grant Programs:
Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP), State Homeland Security Program (SHSP), Urban Areas Security
Initiative Program (UASI)

22. BEFORE YOU BUY YOUR UAV!
Current DHS AEL (as of 7 May 2015) has following line items:
 03OE-07-UPGD[Upgrades, Robots or Remotely Piloted Vehicles]
(Upgrades or accessories to basic robot or RPV platforms, including software upgrades, battery/engine
upgrades, arms, drive systems, range extenders, trailers, etc. Mission specific upgrades such as detectors
and disrupters are detailed in other sections such as Explosive Tools, Search & Rescue, and Detection.)
Eligible FEMA Grant Programs:
Amtrak - (IPR - Amtrak), Intercity Bus Security Grant Program (IBSGP), Operation Stonegarden (OPSG), Port
Security Grant Program (PSGP), State Homeland Security Program (SHSP), Tribal Homeland Security Grant
Program (THSGP), Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP), Urban Areas Security Initiative Program (UASI),
Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP)

23. BEFORE YOU BUY YOUR UAV!
CAO: Grant Programs Information Directorate Bulletin No. 407 [02162016]

24. BEFORE YOU BUY YOUR UAV!
Considerations for your Public Safety Agency:
 Education/Training/Information/Awareness
 Currently <55 lbs sUAS FAA Registration
 Combine Efforts in your All-Hazards Region
 Desired Capabilities vs. UAV Capabilities
 What comes first
 Endurance
 Sensor Imagery
 Payload
 Develop Maintenance and Operations plans
 sUAS Registration
 webEOC Resource listing
 Standardized Training

25. CAVEATS
The FAA is the first, last and only authority to regulate operation of any aerostat/aerodyne in the
National Airspace System.
FAA expects to release “complete sUAS integration” by June/July 2016
 See Part 107 small UAS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
Colorado 2016 legislation regarding unmanned vehicles
 HB 16-1020 (No Drones Near Airports Or Jails)
 HB 16-1213 (Civil Action For Intrusion With Electronic Device)

26. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
David Osborn, CO DHSEM
Jeff Babcock, SLV HLS Grant Coordinator
Constantin Diehl and John Huguley, UAS Colorado / Rocky Mountain UAS
Dick Borowski, Larimer County SAR
Joe Dougherty, UT DEM
Mom and Dad

27. CONCLUSION
Current National and State “UAS Climate”
The Case for UAV with Colorado
 UAV with Utah DPS
 UAV with Nevada DPS
ICS-style Typing and Categorization of UAS
Example of ICS Integration and Position Titles
UAV Acquisition Considerations for your Agency
Caveats

28. QUESTIONS?