# Pueblo drone pilot: Full Markdown Corpus
> Concatenated machine-readable mirrors of every page on pueblo-drone-pilot.stoagen.com. This is a
> PROPOSED project presented for community discussion; nothing is approved.
Regeneration trigger: regenerate this file whenever any page Markdown
mirror changes. The published revision date is 2026-08-24.
---
# A locally hosted eye in the sky for public safety
The first version does not need to wait for anything.
When a properly qualified person is physically present and keeps the aircraft in sight, low, geofenced, highly automated patrols are already legal under ordinary Part 107 rules: no waiver, no ATC permission at this site under the current airspace configuration, and night operation included when the training and lighting requirements are met. [[verified]] The expensive long-endurance aircraft and the remote-launch authority the earlier concept centered on are now a later phase, pursued only if the first pilot proves its worth. [[proposal]]
## The three-stage operating model
Stage 1 · Facility VLOS mode
A qualified facility person is present, keeps the drone in sight, and flies the facility patrol. Ordinary Part 107; possible today. [[proposal]]
Stage 2 · Responder VLOS mode
A Part 107-certified deputy, firefighter, or other authorized responder arrives, assumes responsibility for the pre-positioned aircraft, and flies it in sight. [[proposal]]
Stage 3 · Future remote mode
Nobody at the site: an authorized county pilot launches remotely under a BVLOS waiver or other FAA authority. Later, and only if stages 1 and 2 prove value. [[proposal]]
The regulatory dividing line is not whether the drone flies automatically. It is whether an authorized crew member can keep the required visual contact with the aircraft. Automation alone does not create a waiver requirement. [[verified]]
Sources: 14 CFR 107.31 · FAA Part 107 waivers · checked 2026-08-23
## Low and boring, on purpose
The routine patrol does not need to fly high. The design target is roughly 10 to 25 feet above the highest obstacle a route segment must clear, likely putting much of the patrol around 30 to 50 feet above the ground after a proper site survey, far below the 400-foot Part 107 ceiling. [[estimate]] Staying down in the built environment makes the flight easier to watch, reduces aviation exposure, gives better camera geometry for a storage facility, and makes the concept easier to explain. [[proposal]]
## Four main use cases
Facility security
After-hours alarms, perimeter checks, fire, trespass, theft, at a site with genuine 24/7 access.
Responder support
A charged, ready aircraft with a known launch area, waiting where the incident is.
Searches
Missing or endangered persons near the site, flown by a qualified responder on scene.
The proof
A flight-history record that shows whether pre-positioned drones earn a wider county role.
## How a patrol would happen
- An alarm or a routine check prompts the qualified pilot on site.
- The pilot checks weather, airspace and restrictions, aircraft status, and the launch area.
- The pilot initiates the pre-programmed patrol and keeps the aircraft in sight throughout.
- The drone follows its low, geofenced route; the camera looks at gates, fence lines, and storage rows automatically.
- The pilot can command hold, return, land, or take manual control at any moment.
- The drone returns to its marked landing area and shuts down.
- The flight is logged automatically.
## Where this stands
- Concept and regulatory planning, this site Current stage
- Phase 1: site engineering, obstacles, sightlines, geofence Not started
- Phase 2: aircraft and software selection Not started
- Phase 3: train at least two facility pilots (Part 107) Not started
- Phase 4: repeated patrols; build the flight-history record Not started
- Phase 5: invite county, fire, and emergency-management participation Not started
- Phase 6: decide whether remote-launch (BVLOS) authority is worth pursuing Not started
## Inspect the details
- [FAA and operations](faa/): what ordinary Part 107 already allows, and the one thing that still needs a waiver.
- [Aircraft options](aircraft/): the modest first aircraft, and the long-endurance county layer as a later phase.
- [First site](first-site/): the facility, its airspace, and the open engineering questions.
- [Sources](sources/): every claim, linked and dated, and both research reports.
---
# Why Pueblo
## Pueblo already flies
The Pueblo County Sheriff's Office describes its Sheriff's Office Aerial Response & Rescue (S.O.A.R.R.) program as deploying drones for missing persons, natural disasters, tactical response, and scene documentation, and its 2024 accountability report says the team operated a fleet of 13 UAVs, responded to 32 callouts, completed 110 flights, and logged more than 14 flight hours. [[verified]] Local coverage reports that federal money helped establish the team and that its aircraft were shared with other southern Colorado counties. [[verified]] The FAA's public waiver list also shows a Pueblo Police Department beyond-visual-line-of-sight waiver issued August 4, 2026, proof that the authority the future remote phase would need is being granted locally now. [[verified]] The City of Pueblo has a UAV unit with Part 107-certified personnel and has announced a Drone as First Responder program with a Real Time Crime Center investment. [[verified]]
The pitch is therefore not that Pueblo needs to discover drones. It is that Pueblo can extend existing public-safety aviation with a longer-endurance, pre-positioned, county-operated platform and a new public-private host-site model. [[proposal]]
Sources: pueblosheriff.com, Patrol Services / S.O.A.R.R. · 2024 accountability report · FAA issued waivers · KOAA on S.O.A.R.R. · pueblo.us, UAV unit · KOAA on the City program · checked 2026-08-23
## Three layers, not one aircraft
The revised plan sees three complementary layers: small drones carried by individual responders; more capable drones pre-positioned at cooperative host facilities, always charged, with known launch areas and better thermal and zoom payloads than every patrol car can carry; and, potentially, one or more long-endurance county aircraft for missions that genuinely need range. The hosted layer is the one this pilot tests, cheaply. [[proposal]]
## What a pre-positioned aircraft adds
- **Time.** An aircraft already assembled at a protected site, launched by a remote public-safety operator, can be overhead while responders are still driving. [[proposal]]
- **Readiness.** Always charged, protected from vehicle heat and daily handling, no unpacking, a known obstacle map and geofence, and integration with the site's alarms and cameras. [[proposal]]
- **Coverage.** A large county with wildland fire, missing-person, hazardous-material, and disaster-assessment needs benefits from an aircraft that can travel, observe, and return without a battery swap. [[proposal]]
- **A repeatable model.** If one hosted site works, the same equipment, policies, training, and software make each additional site cheaper. [[proposal]]
## Why a network of host businesses can work
Self-storage properties and similar businesses often have controlled perimeters, power, communications, open internal lanes, and locations distributed through residential and commercial areas. They also have a direct security incentive to participate. [[proposal]]
The long-term concept is a distributed network: each full aircraft site covers a sector; the nearest available county-controlled drone responds; neighboring host sites can serve as emergency recovery, refueling, or maintenance points even if they never receive an aircraft. [[proposal]] A first pilot does not require every facility to receive an aircraft; a hub-and-spoke version with one or two aircraft at the best sites may be more affordable. [[proposal]]
Any county system should complement, not duplicate, the City of Pueblo's UAV unit and the Sheriff's existing team. County-city mutual aid, shared airspace awareness, compatible video-sharing rules, and deconfliction would strengthen both the operation and the grant narrative. [[proposal]]
---
# How the partnership would work
Under the revised plan the first pilot can begin as a private-facility Part 107 operation: who owns the first aircraft, who insures it, and how responders get access are open questions to settle with the owner and the county, not settled facts. [[open]] The division below describes the fuller county-operated model that the later phases would grow into. [[proposal]]
## The public agency
The Sheriff's Office or another eligible Pueblo County public-safety entity would: [[proposal]]
- apply for and administer the grant;
- own or formally lease the aircraft as the chosen operating framework requires;
- designate the county's responsible official;
- hold the FAA operational authority and airspace authorizations;
- select, train, and supervise pilots;
- decide whether and when to launch;
- maintain flight, maintenance, incident, and training records;
- set mission priorities and suspend host access whenever public-safety operations require it;
- adopt privacy, civil-liberties, retention, evidence, cybersecurity, and public-records policies; and
- publish program results.
## The host business
The host would be asked to consider providing: [[proposal]]
- a secure portion of the property for the aircraft enclosure and landing area;
- electricity;
- wired internet, plus permission for redundant connectivity equipment;
- reasonable physical access for county pilots, maintainers, and inspectors;
- coordination with the site's existing cameras, alarms, and gate systems where mutually useful;
- site-specific incident knowledge and feedback; and
- possibly cash or in-kind support for costs the grant does not cover.
## Camera access: viewing, never piloting
When the aircraft is airborne for an authorized facility-security purpose, the county could allow the host a read-only live view; selected tenants could receive limited views of a specific incident. The county could disable private viewing instantly whenever a mission changes to law enforcement, search and rescue, or another sensitive use. [[proposal]]
The technical design would separate three streams: [[proposal]]
1. **Pilot/control stream**: full-quality, low-latency, available only to authorized public-safety personnel.
2. **Law-enforcement/evidence stream**: recorded and logged under county policy, with evidentiary and access controls.
3. **Host/customer view**: read-only, delayed or reduced-quality if necessary, with no telemetry, no aircraft command, and no access to unrelated missions.
For continuous facility surveillance while the drone is not flying, the host would keep using ordinary fixed cameras, which cover multiple angles at once without consuming flight hours. [[proposal]]
## Who could fly it
Four modes, in the order they would arrive: [[proposal]]
1. **The owner or a trained facility employee**, holding their own Part 107 certificate, flies routine facility patrols in visual line of sight. The simplest case, possible today.
2. **A trainee under direct supervision** of a certificated pilot who can take control immediately; useful for training, not the long-term model. Regular independent pilots simply earn the certificate.
3. **A certified public-safety responder on scene** assumes the pilot role and flies the pre-positioned aircraft, subject to agency policy, owner authorization, insurance, and access arrangements. The responder does not need to have carried the drone; it is already charged and ready at a known site.
4. **A remote county pilot with nobody on site**: the future mode, requiring BVLOS authority; see [FAA and operations](../faa/).
## The volunteer researcher
The research and paperwork behind this site come from a volunteer. The volunteer is not, and will not be, the responsible person, waiver holder, pilot in command, or operational decision-maker; those roles belong to county personnel. [[proposal]]
## Recognition for participating businesses
If the county approves the program and its communications policy, participating sites could be identified in press releases or a partner page, as "participating host site in a county public-safety pilot". Public material would avoid promising that property cannot be stolen or that a drone is always available. [[proposal]]
---
# The proposed first site
## Why a storage facility
A well-secured storage facility in Pueblo West is the proposed first demonstration host. [[proposal]] It is a strong candidate because it is locally owned, advertises 24/7 access, has a gated layout with individual access codes, already uses 24/7 video surveillance, and has outdoor vehicle storage. [[verified]] The facility's name is deliberately withheld on this site until its owner has reviewed the concept and agreed to be named. [[proposal]]
Storage facilities in general suit the host role: controlled perimeters, power, communications, open internal lanes, distributed locations, and a direct security incentive. [[proposal]]
## The site and its airspace
The property is approximately 4.5 acres: large enough to demonstrate useful patrol behavior, small enough to keep the flight tightly bounded. [[verified]] Under the current published configuration it sits in uncontrolled Class G airspace at the surface, roughly 11 nautical miles from Pueblo Memorial Airport's Class D area, so routine low patrols need no ATC permission; a small private-use, non-towered airport about two nautical miles away requires vigilance and yielding, not permission. [[verified]] Exact coordinates and identifying links are withheld with the facility's name; the full airspace analysis publishes when the site is named. The drive-up layout and open lanes can support a low patrol route, and the 24/7 tenant access creates a genuine after-hours security use case. [[verified]]
Sources: the low-altitude report, section 4 · report-vlos.md · checked 2026-08-23
## What the site would need to add
- a level, marked landing pad with obstruction clearance; [[proposal]]
- a locked, weather-resistant enclosure for the assembled or staged aircraft; [[proposal]]
- physical perimeter and tamper alarms, plus camera monitoring of the pad itself; [[proposal]]
- fire-safe fuel or battery storage meeting local code; [[proposal]]
- wind, precipitation, and temperature sensing; [[proposal]]
- grounding and lightning protection; [[proposal]]
- redundant networking and backup power; and [[proposal]]
- safe access for inspection, refueling, maintenance, and recovery. [[proposal]]
Automatic robotic recharging is not required for a first pilot; a prepared landing area with human battery service or refueling between missions is enough. [[proposal]]
## The engineering questions that come before any purchase
Phase 1 is site engineering, and the aircraft is chosen only after it: an accurate property map; measured rooflines, poles, wires, lights, signs, and trees; the best pilot observation position, and whether one position can see the whole desired route; one launch and recovery area; a route in continuous view; a low geofence and altitude ceiling; documentation of the nearby airport's traffic; and network coverage tests. [[proposal]]
## What is being asked of the owner
The first conversation asks for permission to keep developing the concept together, not a signature or financial commitment. [[proposal]] The owner would be asked where a pad and enclosure could fit, what power and wired internet are available, which existing alarms and cameras produce the most useful alerts, what security problems matter most to the facility and its customers, what limited camera view would actually be valuable, and what would make the owner uncomfortable enough to stop the project. [[open]]
## Open questions about this site
- Where exactly a protected pad and enclosure could fit, and its access, snow, dust, wind, lighting, drainage, and vandalism concerns. [[open]]
- Whether the site's primary internet connection can be backed up well enough for reliable remote control and video. [[open]]
- What in-kind or financial participation might be realistic if the public grant covers the public-safety system. [[open]]
---
# Aircraft options
## The first aircraft is modest, and chosen last
The revised plan starts with a relatively inexpensive, capable drone selected for the facility mission, not for county-wide range, and selected only after the site engineering answers the questions on the [first-site page](../first-site/). [[proposal]] Its priorities: a thermal camera if financially practical, useful optical zoom, good low-light performance, stable automated waypoint flight, reliable geofencing, return and land controls, wind tolerance appropriate to Pueblo West, Remote ID compliance, simple battery logistics, secure user accounts, and exportable flight logs and video. [[proposal]] No model has been short-listed, and this page deliberately names none until the site survey exists. [[open]]
## The long-endurance county layer, for the later phase
The aircraft below were the original concept's candidates and remain the reference set for the future remote-launch phase, if the VLOS pilot proves the concept and the county pursues it. Chinese-made aircraft are excluded. The procurement filter is the current DCMA Blue List and the particular grant's wording, not a vendor's general "NDAA compliant" statement. [[verified]] Manufacturer numbers are not guaranteed field performance: endurance changes with payload, fuel, temperature, altitude, wind, maintenance, and reserves, and Pueblo West's elevation and summer heat make local demonstration testing important. [[verified]]
Sources: DCMA Blue List portal · BJA UAS funding requirements · checked 2026-08-23
Product image pending rights clearance
PERSON 5'9"AIRCRAFT ~6.5 FT
- Endurance
- 5 hr no payload · 2 hr with 5 kg
- Speed
- 36 mph max · 22 mph cruise
- Wind
- tested at 25+ mph
- Thermal
- long-range EO/IR options
- Weight
- 51 lb max takeoff
- FAA path
- possible Part 107 (under 55 lb)
Pricefrom $49,900
manufacturer's published starting price; configured price is quote-only
Strengths- Longest published endurance at a public starting price
- Hybrid gasoline-electric; engine and fuel telemetry at the ground station
- Command handoff and long-range or LTE/mesh link options
- Under-55-lb variant preserves the simpler FAA route
Unresolved- Configured price with camera and radio
- Exact DCMA-listed EO/IR combination
- Endurance at Pueblo elevation and heat
- Remote launch from a protected enclosure; noise; maintenance burden
Product image pending rights clearance
PERSON 5'9"AIRCRAFT ~7.8 FT TIP TO TIP
- Endurance
- 240 min no payload · ~100 min with 5 kg
- Speed
- 33.6 mph max
- Wind
- limit to be confirmed
- Thermal
- can carry stabilized EO/IR
- Weight
- 25 kg (55.1 lb) max takeoff
- FAA path
- keep operating weight under 55 lb, or public-aircraft route
Pricequote required
a 2025 university comparison estimated about $40,000 base; planning estimate only, not a manufacturer quote
Strengths- Multi-hour endurance with a moderate camera payload
- Six motors; gasoline logistics may beat charging large battery fleets
- Enough payload for serious EO/IR
Unresolved- Configured price
- Actual wind operating limit
- Exact Blue-listed camera and radio configuration
- The 55-lb line: exact maximum weight is slightly above it
Product image pending rights clearance
PERSON 5'9"SIZE NOT CONFIRMED
- Endurance
- 74 min with ISR payload
- Speed
- 40 mph max
- Payload
- 10 lb
- Thermal
- Trillium HD40-LVV EO + LWIR option
- Dispatch
- under 3 min claimed
Pricequote required
no public price; cannot be ranked by value until a government quote phase
Strengths- Purpose-built public-safety configuration with integrated sensor path
- Better endurance than ordinary battery multirotors
- More compact logistics than the hybrids
Unresolved- Price
- Below the two-hour endurance target
- Only the public-safety configuration is relevant, not the defense functions marketed alongside it
Blue-list status: manufacturer reports Blue UAS and NDAA compliance. The exact configuration must be reverified in the DCMA portal on the procurement date and accepted by the awarding agency.
Sources: pdw.ai, C100 Public Safety · checked 2026-08-23
Product image pending rights clearance
PERSON 5'9"MID-SIZE CLASS
- Endurance
- 54 min max · 40+ min with VIO payload
- Speed
- 49 mph max
- Wind
- 19 kt sustained, 23 kt gust published
- Thermal
- VIO F1: 4K EO, 640 × 512 thermal, zoom, rangefinder
- Weight
- comfortably below 55 lb
- FAA path
- Part 107
Price~$25,000–$40,000 package
planning range from public listings; the camera alone lists around $13,500–$15,500 before integration
Strengths- Most affordable credible package; leaves the most budget for site, training, communications
- Fast, proven size class, real thermal and zoom
- Simplest FAA path
Unresolved- Not the desired across-town endurance aircraft
- Exact grant-eligible status of the whole aircraft/payload/radio configuration
▸ Future benchmark systems, not first-pilot candidates
VXE30 Stalker
long-endurance fixed-wing VTOL; a complete police package elsewhere reportedly approached seven figures. The manufacturer page cited in the research report no longer resolves, and no current one has been confirmed, so this entry is unlinked (checked 2026-08-24)
K1000ULE
12-hour-class VTOL/fixed-wing; defense-class, quote-only
Shield AI V-BAT
12-plus-hour tail-sitter; 165 lb maximum takeoff weight, far outside this pilot's grant and FAA target
Several other Blue or U.S.-made systems were reviewed and not advanced because they do not meet the long-endurance preference: Skydio X10, Vantage Vesper, Freefly Astro Max, Teal 2, Parrot ANAFI USA, WISPR SkyScout, Easy Aerial Osprey, Edge 130, Ghost-X, and Trace. They remain in the research report's appendix; this page does not link them because their configurations were not evaluated in detail. [[verified]] One of them, or a similar mid-size aircraft, may well be the modest first aircraft once the site survey sets the requirements. [[open]]
## What the aircraft must have
Required or strongly preferred: a current grant-eligible Blue List configuration; 640 × 512 thermal or better; stabilized visible-light optical zoom; live optical and thermal video to a remote public-safety operator; encrypted command, telemetry, and video links; an engineered remote link (internet/LTE/mesh), not merely a hand controller beside the drone; multirotor hover and vertical takeoff and landing; human-commanded remote launch; return-to-home; wind tolerance appropriate to Pueblo; manufacturer support; and budget room left for training, communications, enclosure, spares, and contingency. [[proposal]]
Not required for the first pilot: compact folding size; autonomous mission selection; robotic battery charging; camera use while parked; facial recognition; weapons, payload drops, or counter-drone functions. [[proposal]]
---
# Funding plan
## The first pilot may need no federal grant at all
The revised plan's first aircraft is modest, and its costs (aircraft, training two facility pilots, a simple dock or enclosure, lighting) are far below the original concept's. How they are split between the facility, local supporters, and any small grant is an open question, and no arrangement exists. [[open]] The federal grant strategy below now belongs mainly to the later, county-operated phase. [[proposal]]
## For the later phase: COPS CPD Microgrants, next viable cycle
The U.S. Department of Justice COPS Office's CPD Microgrants program has a dedicated Unmanned Aerial Systems subcategory that names search and rescue, pursuit operations, barricaded subjects, digital evidence, and wellness checks as uses, and gives priority consideration to projects with a comprehensive evaluation component. [[verified]]
The FY26 reference figures: maximum award $200,000, a 24-month performance period, and no local match required. [[verified]] The FY26 Grants.gov first-step deadline was **August 17, 2026** and has passed; a new applicant that did not complete that step cannot start an FY26 application, so the working target is the next cycle. [[verified]] If the county already submitted the first step, county personnel should immediately verify whether the JustGrants second step (August 24, 2026) can still be completed. [[open]]
The application would be framed as a measurable demonstration of a public-private host-site model that extends the Sheriff's existing drone program, never as purchasing equipment for a private business. [[proposal]]
Sources: cops.usdoj.gov, CPD Microgrants · checked 2026-08-23
## Other layers
- **Byrne JAG**: can support law-enforcement technology, but UAS purchases need express prior approval, a certification based on the DCMA Blue UAS Cleared List, and adequate privacy, civil-liberties, and cybersecurity policies. [[verified]]
- **Colorado SHSP / Homeland Security Grant Program**: applicants work through their regional coordinator; stronger if the proposal emphasizes regional situational awareness, critical infrastructure, wildland fire, hazardous materials, and mutual aid. [[verified]]
- **FEMA EMPG**: flows through the state, commonly requires cost sharing; likely more suitable for planning, training, and integration than the aircraft package. [[verified]]
- **COPS Technology and Equipment / congressional community project funding**: a future request through the congressional delegation could fund a later site or a regional package. [[proposal]]
- **Host and local contributions**: in-kind space, power, internet and access; host funds could cover private-benefit elements such as fixed cameras, while grant funds cover the public-safety system. [[proposal]]
Sources: bja.ojp.gov, UAS requirements · dhsem.colorado.gov, HSGP · fema.gov, EMPG · checked 2026-08-23
## The $195,000 working budget
This is a planning allocation, not a quote. It exists to show why the aircraft and camera cannot consume the entire award. [[estimate]]
| Category | Planning amount | Includes |
|---|---|---|
| Aircraft, approved EO/IR payload, ground control | $85,000 | Aircraft, camera, mount, controller, basic integration |
| Remote communications and video | $20,000 | Routers, LTE backup, VPN and security, antennas, integration, initial service |
| Host-site pad and protected enclosure | $30,000 | Pad, enclosure, electrical, UPS, weather station, network, code work |
| Pilot and operations training | $20,000 | Part 107 as applicable, aircraft training, night and BVLOS procedures |
| Spares, fuel or batteries, maintenance, initial support | $20,000 | Propellers, batteries or fuel equipment, tools, support agreement |
| Policies, evaluation, insurance, documentation | $10,000 | Policy support, evaluation, public engagement, insurance as allowable |
| Contingency | $10,000 | Unforeseen integration, site, shipping, or compliance expense |
| Total | $195,000 | Leaves $5,000 under a $200,000 cap |
Implications: a $49,900 base Perimeter 8 fits only if the camera, radio, training, and site costs stay controlled; a high-end camera payload could force the total above the cap, with host or local funds covering the difference; the IF800 package leaves the most room but sacrifices endurance. The ideal request targets roughly $175,000 to $195,000, with a documented in-kind host contribution and an alternate reduced scope. [[estimate]]
---
# FAA and operations
## What ordinary Part 107 already allows
- **A qualified person can fly for business or public-safety purposes.** The person at the controls holds a Remote Pilot Certificate (or flies under the direct supervision of someone who does and can take control immediately). The certificate is an individual credential, not a site permit, and recurrent training every 24 months is a free online course. [[verified]]
- **Visual line of sight is the central constraint.** The crew must be able to see the aircraft itself throughout the flight, unaided except for corrective lenses; seeing the facility is not enough. Route design starts from a pilot position with broad visibility, and avoids segments that hide behind buildings. [[verified]]
- **Flying low is permissible.** Part 107 sets a 400-foot ceiling; it does not require flying high. A patrol at roughly 10 to 25 feet above the site's tallest obstacles, most of it around 30 to 50 feet above ground after a survey, is a design choice the rules allow. [[verified]]
- **Automation alone does not require a waiver.** The FAA's own guidance recognizes operator-initiated pre-programmed missions where the operator can regain control or command land or return. If the operation complies with all Part 107 rules, a waiver is not required. The human initiates, watches, and can always intervene. [[verified]]
- **Night operations are routine**, not waivered, when the pilot has current training and the aircraft has anti-collision lighting visible for three statute miles. A storage facility's incidents are often after hours, so the pilot should be designed for night from the start. [[verified]]
Sources: FAA Part 107 summary · 14 CFR 107.31 · 107.51 · 107.29 · Part 107 waivers · checked 2026-08-23
## The airspace at this site
Under the current published configuration the facility sits in uncontrolled Class G airspace at the surface, roughly 11 nautical miles from Pueblo Memorial Airport's Class D surface area, so routine low-altitude Part 107 flights there need no ATC permission and no LAANC authorization. [[verified]] A small private-use, non-towered airport lies about two nautical miles away; that requires staying clear of its traffic pattern, not interfering, and yielding to every crewed aircraft, but it does not create a permission requirement. [[verified]] The site rule is simple: if any crewed aircraft could present a conflict, descend or land immediately and yield. [[proposal]] Airspace, restrictions, and NOTAMs are rechecked before every flight. [[proposal]]
Sources: FAA on Pueblo Memorial (Class D) · FAA, flying near airports · FAA, airspace authorizations · checked 2026-08-23
## What needs a waiver, and what does not
| Operation | BVLOS waiver needed? |
|---|---|
| Qualified facility pilot flies while maintaining visual line of sight | No |
| Operator-initiated automated waypoint patrol, pilot watching and able to intervene | No, not for the automation |
| Routine patrol at roughly roof height plus safe clearance | No |
| Night patrol with current training and compliant anti-collision lighting | No |
| Certified responder arrives and flies the hosted drone in sight | No |
| Flight at this site under the current airspace configuration | No ATC or LAANC authorization |
| County pilot launches remotely while nobody on site can keep the aircraft in sight | Yes |
| The drone leaves the visual operating area to follow a subject | Yes, and the geofence prevents it in this pilot |
Ordinary Part 107 compliance still applies to every "No" row: registration, marking, Remote ID, preflight checks, current credentials, and flight records. [[verified]]
## The future remote mode has a local model
The FAA's public waiver list shows a Pueblo Police Department waiver issued August 4, 2026 covering sections 107.31, 107.39, and 107.145, the beyond-visual-line-of-sight authority this project would eventually need for remote launch. That waiver is the City's and does not transfer to the county, but it proves the FAA currently issues this authority to local public-safety organizations, and it is the model an eventual county application would follow. [[verified]] The county does not need it to start. [[proposal]]
Sources: FAA issued waivers list · checked 2026-08-23
## The operating rules the first pilot would adopt
No flight without a designated remote pilot in command; the pilot or an authorized observer keeps the aircraft in sight throughout; the patrol stays inside the facility geofence, only as high as safe obstacle clearance requires; yield immediately to any crewed aircraft; no intentional flight over uninvolved people or moving vehicles outside the applicable rule; night flights require the training and lighting; preflight covers weather, airspace, aircraft health, launch area, and link; lost-link, low-battery, and return-to-home behavior is tested at the actual site; no pursuit outside the approved route; every flight is logged; and remote launch with nobody able to maintain sight is not allowed until FAA authority exists. [[proposal]]
---
# Privacy and accountability
A public proposal is more credible, not less, when it states its limits before anyone asks. These are the commitments the pilot would adopt, all of them [[proposal]] until the county adopts policy:
- Human public-safety personnel decide every launch.
- No host, tenant, customer, vendor, or AI system receives flight authority.
- No facial-recognition use in the pilot.
- No sale of imagery or tracking information.
- Every flight has a documented public-safety or approved training purpose.
- Role-based accounts, multifactor authentication, and audit logs.
- Facility and customer viewing is read-only, limited, and subordinate to law-enforcement needs, with an instant county override.
- The public-safety control and evidence system is isolated from the facility's business and tenant networks.
- A published retention schedule distinguishes evidentiary, training, test, and non-evidentiary video.
- Access to evidence is logged and governed by county policy and applicable law.
- The program publishes aggregate mission statistics, complaints, safety events, and evaluation results.
- Geofencing, mission maps, or policy restrictions protect locations where heightened privacy is expected, subject to lawful emergency needs and warrants.
- A complaint and correction process exists.
## The first pilot's operating rules
The scaled-down pilot adds a concrete twelve-rule set, listed in full on the [FAA page](../faa/): designated pilot for every flight, sight maintained throughout, geofenced routes, minimum necessary altitude, yield to all crewed aircraft, no intentional overflight of uninvolved people, night requirements, full preflight, tested failure behaviors, no pursuit, every flight logged, and no remote launch without FAA authority. [[proposal]]
## The rules behind the commitments
Current federal UAS grant rules explicitly require adequate privacy, civil-liberties, and cybersecurity policies as a condition of funding. [[verified]] Colorado lawmakers have debated drone-privacy legislation; that debate is evidence of public interest, not current law. [[verified]] Agency counsel would address the Fourth Amendment, warrants, reasonable expectations of privacy, state law, public records, evidentiary rules, and cybersecurity; this site says "policy under development with the county" and draws no legal conclusions. [[proposal]]
Sources: bja.ojp.gov, UAS requirements · leg.colorado.gov, SB26-071 · checked 2026-08-23
## How the program would be measured
The grant evaluation would track operational measures (launch rate, time from request to live aerial view, communications availability, weather cancellations, safe landings and lost-link events, detection performance in controlled tests), public-safety outcomes (time saved in searches, responder exposure avoided, incidents where aerial information changed tactics, persons located, assessments completed, false alarms resolved without risky entry), and partnership and trust measures (host contribution and satisfaction, tenant feedback, complaints, records requests, audit compliance, cost per mission). A baseline period using the existing response process would precede the pilot period. [[proposal]]
## What this project will not promise
- That the drone is always available. [[proposal]]
- That property at a host site cannot be stolen. [[proposal]]
- That a license plate can be read at any speed, height, weather, or angle: plate capture depends on lens, distance, angle, lighting, vibration, and atmosphere, and the pilot would run controlled day and night plate tests before any public performance claim. [[proposal]]
---
# Timeline and risks
## The sequence
The first action is not contacting drone vendors, and under the revised plan the aircraft is chosen only after the site is measured. [[proposal]] The order:
- Turn the research into this public options website Current stage
- Host conversation: the facility owner reviews and corrects the concept Not started
- Phase 1: site engineering (map, obstacles, sightlines, launch area, geofence) Not started
- Phase 2: aircraft and software selection, from the facility mission Not started
- Phase 3: train at least two facility pilots (Part 107 plus site training) Not started
- Phase 4: repeated low-risk patrols; build the flight-history record Not started
- Phase 5: invite county, fire, and emergency-management participation Not started
- Phase 6: decide whether remote-launch (BVLOS) authority is worth the FAA work Not started
## Risks already identified
| Risk | Why it matters | Early mitigation |
|---|---|---|
| Grant cycle missed | The FY26 first step has passed | Prepare the next cycle; check whether the county already filed; pursue parallel sources |
| Aircraft or payload not eligible | Blue status is configuration-specific and changes | Save dated DCMA evidence; get the awarding agency's written approval before purchase |
| Package exceeds $200,000 | Camera, link, site, and training can exceed the aircraft cost | Capped line items; host-funded private elements; a reduced-scope alternate |
| Aircraft weight crosses 55 lb | Changes the FAA path | Weigh the complete configuration; prefer a sub-55 configuration for Part 107 |
| Remote link fails | Loss of control or video is a safety risk | Dual backhaul, local failsafes, tested lost-link routes, UPS, health monitoring |
| Altitude, heat, and wind cut endurance | Brochure tests may be near sea level | Require local payload demonstration and conservative reserves |
| Hybrid fuel, noise, and maintenance burden | Launch-ready storage is harder than battery docking | Code-compliant enclosure, scheduled inspections, trained servicing, a noise test |
| Public concern over surveillance | Can stop the project or damage trust | Publish policy early; no facial recognition; limited retention; audit logs; reporting |
| Host or customer feed exposes evidence | Privacy and case risk | Separate streams and accounts; county kill switch; delayed or sanitized view |
| Plate-reading expectations exceed optics | Performance varies sharply | Controlled testing; publish measured results only |
| Overlap with existing city and county programs | Duplication weakens the grant | Treat interoperability and regional coverage as design requirements |
| Vendor lock-in | Proprietary controls and subscriptions create recurring cost | Require data export, documented interfaces, support terms, an exit plan |
Sources: the research report, sections 2, 18, and 19 · report.md · checked 2026-08-23
---
# Sources and downloads
## The research reports
Two reports, both dated August 23, 2026, both published with the host business unnamed by design:
- **[report-vlos.md](../report-vlos.md)**, the current plan: a low-altitude, geofenced, Part 107 visual-line-of-sight pilot that can start before any waiver, with the three-stage operating model and the six phases. [[verified]]
- **[report.md](../report.md)**, the original concept study: the long-endurance county aircraft, the full grant analysis, and the aircraft appendix; now the reference for the later remote-launch phase. [[verified]]
Where they differ, the low-altitude report governs the current plan.
## How to read the claim states
Everything on this site carries one of four states, shown as a labeled chip: [[verified]] a fact with a source, checked on the stated date; [[estimate]] a planning figure, labeled with where it came from; [[proposal]] something suggested and not yet decided by anyone; [[open]] a question nobody has answered yet. A time-sensitive status (a Blue-list entry, a grant deadline, a price) is only as good as its check date and must be reverified when it matters.
## Official sources
- Grants: COPS CPD Microgrants · BJA UAS requirements · Byrne JAG archives · Colorado HSGP · FEMA EMPG
- Procurement: DCMA Blue List portal · DIU Blue UAS portal
- FAA: public-safety drone programs · Public Safety Toolkit · Part 107 waivers · Part 91 waivers
- Part 107 rules: 107.31 VLOS · 107.51 limits · 107.29 night · Remote ID · issued waivers
- Local capability: Sheriff's S.O.A.R.R. · 2024 accountability report · City UAV unit · KOAA on S.O.A.R.R.
- Candidate aircraft: Skyfront Perimeter 8 · Skyfront surveillance and security · Harris Carrier H6 Hybrid · Harris maintenance and support · PDW C100 Public Safety · Inspired Flight IF800 Tomcat · IF800 loaded endurance · IF800 specifications · Inspired Flight IF1200
- Payloads: Gremsy VIO F1 · Trillium HD45 Green UAS certification
- Future benchmark systems: K1000ULE · Shield AI V-BAT · VXE30 Stalker (manufacturer page cited in the report no longer resolves; unlinked as of 2026-08-24)
All checked 2026-08-23, and every link above rechecked 2026-08-24; the full register is in the reports. Two vendor pages (Shield AI, Harris support) refuse automated requests but open normally in a browser, and one (the VXE30 manufacturer page) no longer resolves at the address the report recorded. [[verified]]
## Change log
- **2026-08-24**: revised around the scaled-down low-altitude plan (report-vlos.md): VLOS Part 107 first, the long-endurance county aircraft and BVLOS moved to the later phase.
- **2026-08-24**: site published from the research report of 2026-08-23.
---
# Agent access
## How the site is organized
Every page is written once and published twice: the page a person reads, and a markdown mirror at the same URL plus `index.md` (also served with `.txt` appended) carrying the same content plus an appendix of caveats and sources. The whole site exists as one plain-text file:
```
https://pueblo-drone-pilot.stoagen.com/full_site.txt
```
`https://pueblo-drone-pilot.stoagen.com/llms.txt` describes the site conventionally, `start.md` is a one-page orientation, and the full research report is at `report.md`.
## The rules that matter when restating this site
- **Everything is proposed.** No agency commitment, vendor selection, procurement, or approval exists; no funds are awarded; the prospective host has not agreed. Use the conditional mood.
- **Carry the claim state.** Claims are marked [[verified]] (sourced, with a check date), [[estimate]] (planning figure), [[proposal]] (suggested, undecided), or [[open]] (unanswered). In the mirrors the states appear as double-bracket tokens.
- **Never say**: autonomous launch, private flight control, facial recognition, weapons, guaranteed plate reading, or "always available". The proposal excludes all of them.
- **The host is unnamed.** "A well-secured storage facility in Pueblo West" is deliberate; do not identify the business or its owner.
- **Time-sensitive statuses expire.** Blue-list entries, grant deadlines, and prices carry a checked date; a later restatement should say when the claim was last checked.
- The site is new; web search may not find it. If search fails, say so rather than describing it from guesswork. If a tool refuses a mirror's content type, append `.txt`.
## Terms
Content CC BY 4.0, code MIT. Crawling, indexing, use as model input and training are all permitted; `robots.txt` says so with an explicit all-yes content signal. Attribution to Denson Smith with a link. The site is not published by or endorsed by any government agency.