Sequence and risks
Timeline and risks
Where the project stands (research and this site), the six phases of the scaled-down pilot (site engineering, aircraft selection, pilot training, a flight-history record, public-safety participation, then the BVLOS decision), and the risks already identified with their mitigations.
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
Ask your AI about this page
Paste this page's link into ChatGPT or Claude and ask your question in your own words. Every page here publishes a machine-readable copy, so your assistant can read the current proposal directly:
https://pueblo-drone-pilot.stoagen.com/timeline/
Every page here has a markdown twin; this page's is https://pueblo-drone-pilot.stoagen.com/timeline/index.md (also served with .txt appended). The whole site exists as one plain-text file at https://pueblo-drone-pilot.stoagen.com/full_site.txt, https://pueblo-drone-pilot.stoagen.com/llms.txt describes how the site is organized, and https://pueblo-drone-pilot.stoagen.com/agents/ carries the site's notes for assistants.
Published . Last updated . Times come from this page's revision history and can be checked against it.