AUVSI XPONENTIAL Recap: Drone Operations over the High Seas

At AUVSI XPONENTIAL 2026, Courtney Freeman, Counsel at Adams & Reese, and Francisco Castillo, Senior Corporate Counsel at Amazon Prime Air, discussed the unresolved framework for civil unmanned aircraft operations over the high seas. Although many operators understandably focus on BVLOS approvals, aircraft certification, C2 link performance, detect-and-avoid capabilities, and airspace coordination, overwater operations may implicate a separate and more fundamental threshold issue once a route extends beyond 12 nautical miles offshore.

Operations Over the High Seas

To recap the finer points of the discussion, for many concepts of operations, the route may seem domestic as a practical matter. A flight may begin and end in the United States, rely on U.S. infrastructure, serve U.S. customers, and support missions such as medical resupply, disaster logistics, offshore energy operations, ship-to-shore support, or AAM routes across island chains. But if the most efficient route briefly crosses non-territorial airspace, the legal analysis changes in a way that can be consequential for operators planning real-world deployments. Beyond 12 nautical miles, no single state has sovereignty over the airspace, and the analysis shifts from domestic FAA authority to the Chicago Convention and ICAO Annex 2 framework. For crewed aviation, that framework is familiar and administrable. For UAS, it can function as an invisible legal wall. 

There are multiple relevant Convention provisions that complicate UAS compliance. Most importantly, Article 12 requires operations over the high seas to follow rules established under the Convention, which points operators to Annex 2. Article 31 requires every aircraft engaged in international navigation to have a certificate of airworthiness issued by the state of registry. Article 32 addresses personnel licenses, Article 33 governs recognition of certificates, and Article 20 concerns nationality and registration marks – and this is just the beginning of the panoply of applicable standards. Collectively, those provisions reflect assumptions about pilots, certificates, physical aircraft documentation, and two-way voice communications that are often difficult, impractical, or unavailable for civil UAS concepts. 

FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024

That distinction matters even in light of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024. A prior Liftoff post discussed several new statutory flexibilities Congress provided to the FAA, including waiver authorities that may allow the agency to move certain UAS and AAM approvals outside the lengthy 14 CFR part 11 exemption process. Section 927, codified at 49 U.S.C. § 44807(e), is particularly significant because it permits the FAA to waive applicable parts of Title 14 for UAS operations without initiating rulemaking or imposing part 11 requirements, to the extent consistent with aviation safety. However, Section 927 does not allow the FAA to waive the United States’ obligations under the Chicago Convention. Domestic statutory flexibility is important, but it is not by itself a complete answer for high-seas operations without action from ICAO.

Legal Questions Regarding 12 NM

The XPONENTIAL presentation sparked discussion of a legal argument that merits further attention. The Chicago Convention describes (but does not directly define) “international air navigation” as flight over the territory of more than one state, which raises the question of whether a flight that departs U.S. airspace, crosses the high seas, and returns to U.S. airspace without overflying another state’s territory triggers the Convention’s full requirements or only Annex 2 rules of the air. The argument that a flight originating and returning to one state without overflying a second state does not constitute international air navigation and thus does not trigger the full Convention is facially colorable but flawed upon deeper investigation. The plain language of Article 12 is clear: “[o]ver the high seas, the rules in force shall be those established under this Convention.” This clause would be unnecessary if “international air navigation” were limited to flights crossing from one State’s territory into another’s. Moreover, the downstream effects of that interpretation would be irrational – for example, a flight from Chicago to Hawaii wouldn’t be required to comply with all of the international standards associated with international air navigation. For this reason, the FAA and ICAO have generally disregarded that interpretation, as reflected in recent ICAO discussions at the 42nd assembly.

A Path Forward

The better near-term path is a lawful bridge. First, ICAO should adopt an interim, Convention-compliant legal vehicle that is expressly temporary and designed to generate operational data. Such a framework should answer practical questions about what document a state may issue, what minimum safety showing supports the operation, what operating conditions attach, and how operational data will flow back to ICAO to inform a permanent framework.

Second, once ICAO creates the necessary legal space, the FAA can use Section 927 to operationalize that space for U.S. operators. Section 927 is a powerful tool because it allows the FAA to waive applicable Title 14 requirements, including requirements that otherwise relate to airworthiness certificates and airman certificates, without requiring full notice-and-comment rulemaking or the part 11 exemption process. More importantly, proposed part 108 will not accommodate operations outside of domestic airspace (similar to part 107 currently), so some form of regulatory relief from part 91 will absolutely be necessary. But that authority is most useful for high-seas operations only if exercised within a framework that remains consistent with the United States’ international obligations. 

Third, industry must bring narrow, technically mature, and truthful requests to the agency. The first approval record will likely matter well beyond the initial applicant, so operators should define a specific corridor, describe a real operation, and build a safety case around what is actually ready. That safety case should address issues such as C2 link performance, detect-and-avoid capability, maritime weather assumptions, loss-of-link contingencies, and collision risk with non-cooperative traffic. A narrow request that can withstand technical questioning is more likely to help build a scalable approval pathway than a broad request that depends on unresolved assumptions. 

There are encouraging signs that the necessary record is beginning to develop. The Louisiana e-IPP overwater use case may provide regulators with a real-world corridor capable of generating data for a more durable framework. A Texas coastal test program involving operations around offshore oil platforms within 12 nautical miles may also help build the empirical record the FAA will need to act more confidently. These types of bounded use cases, captured by an operational box, are important because the FAA is more likely to move when it can evaluate a mature safety case, a narrow initial operation, and a data pathway that improves the permit framework over time.

The takeaway from XPONENTIAL is that high-seas UAS operations should not be viewed as either legally impossible or automatically permissible. The better view is that the existing framework is underdeveloped for modern civil UAS operations, and that industry and government should work toward a lawful architecture that can scale. If done correctly, this is a first step to more reliable access for communities, maritime operators, and critical infrastructure missions that are difficult to serve today. 

About Our Author

Courtney Freeman is a leading member of the Adams & Reese Aviation & Aerospace Team. Prior to joining Adams & Reese, Courtney was a senior member of the Office of the Chief Counsel at the FAA, where she led the teams that provided the legal architecture for emerging aviation technologies, including drone operations, Advanced Air Mobility (AAM), and other initiatives. Courtney’s prior experience affords direct insight into complex legal, operational, and commercial issues, which she applies to help clients navigate risks, solve problems, and capitalize on opportunities.