Emergency Landing Considerations
This closing lesson brings the whole module together at the exact moment every emergency covered so far eventually leads to: choosing where and how to put the aircraft down, often with very little time to think it through. Two regulations govern this choice directly: 14 CFR 107.21, which authorizes the deviation necessary to meet the emergency, and 14 CFR 107.23, which never stops applying, even under time pressure, and shapes exactly what "necessary" is allowed to mean.
14 CFR 107.21: the authority to land somewhere other than planned
Every emergency covered in this module — a lost link that doesn't resolve cleanly, a true fly-away eventually brought under control, a GPS loss requiring an unplanned manual landing, or a battery failure demanding an immediate descent — can require landing at a location that was not part of the original flight plan. 14 CFR 107.21 is exactly what authorizes this: the remote pilot in command may deviate from any rule of Part 107 to the extent necessary to meet a genuine in-flight emergency requiring immediate action. Choosing an unplanned but genuinely safer landing site, even one that might otherwise conflict with a specific operational limitation, is squarely within what 107.21 exists to permit.
14 CFR 107.23: the standard that defines what "necessary" means
107.21's authority is not unlimited, and 14 CFR 107.23 is the regulation that draws the line. It states, in full: "No person may: (a) Operate a civil small unmanned aircraft system in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another; or (b) Allow an object to be dropped from a civil small unmanned aircraft system in a manner that creates an undue hazard to persons or property." An emergency landing, especially an uncontrolled or partially controlled descent, is conceptually similar to the situation 107.23(b) addresses — something falling from the aircraft toward the ground — even when the "object" in question is the aircraft itself coming down under emergency conditions rather than a payload being intentionally released. The same underlying concern applies: the choice of where and how to bring the aircraft down must not create an undue hazard to people or property, and the response overall must not be careless or reckless under 107.23(a).
Site-selection priorities under time pressure
When an emergency landing becomes necessary, a consistent set of priorities helps produce a fast, defensible decision rather than a frozen or panicked one. The clear first priority is any open, unpopulated area — a field, an empty lot, a section of parking lot with no people or vehicles nearby. Low vegetation or unpaved ground is generally preferable to a hard, paved surface if a rough landing is likely, since it can reduce damage on impact, though this is secondary to the presence or absence of people. Areas near, but not on, roads and moving vehicles should be avoided given the additional risk a startled driver or an aircraft coming down near traffic can create. Densely populated areas, crowds, and occupied structures are always the last choice, avoided even at the cost of a harder landing or additional aircraft damage elsewhere.
- First choice: open, unpopulated area with no people, vehicles, or structures nearby.
- Second choice: low vegetation or unpaved ground, still unpopulated, if a rough landing is anticipated.
- Avoid: roads, moving vehicles, and any area with active foot traffic.
- Last resort only: anywhere near a crowd or occupied structure, accepted only if every other option is genuinely worse.
Worked scenario: choosing between two imperfect options
During a battery emergency (Lesson E), you have seconds to choose between two available landing options: a small, unpaved vacant lot with no people visible, roughly 40 feet away, or your original launch pad, a paved area 150 feet away that would require flying directly over a sidewalk with two pedestrians currently walking along it. Applying the priorities above, the vacant lot is the clearly correct choice: closer, avoids overflight of the pedestrians entirely, and the unpaved surface is a secondary consideration next to the more important fact that no person is put at risk. Choosing the paved launch pad specifically because it was the "planned" landing site, despite the pedestrian overflight it requires, would not meet the 107.23 standard even though it might feel like the more "correct" landing spot on paper.
A consistent priority order for choosing an emergency landing site under time pressure, consistent with 14 CFR 107.23.
View LargerWhat to do immediately after an emergency landing
Once the aircraft is on the ground, the remote pilot's responsibilities do not end. Approach the aircraft carefully, never assuming the propellers have fully stopped until visually confirmed, since a partial power state can still be dangerous. Secure the area around the aircraft, especially if bystanders are curious and approaching. Assess for any injuries to people first, then for property damage, and address both appropriately — including exchanging information with any affected property owner, similar to the courtesy expected after a minor vehicle incident.
Determining whether formal accident reporting applies
Separately from anything covered in this module, 14 CFR 107.9 establishes specific reporting thresholds for accidents involving serious injury or a defined level of property damage — covered fully in Module 2's accident-reporting lesson. An emergency landing does not automatically mean those thresholds were met; assess the actual outcome against the reporting criteria rather than assuming a report is or is not required based on how dramatic the situation felt in the moment.
Documenting the event for a possible 107.21(b) report
If the emergency landing required deviating from a Part 107 rule — landing outside a previously authorized area, for instance — document what happened, why the deviation was necessary, and what site-selection reasoning was applied, in case the FAA requests a written report under 14 CFR 107.21(b).
| Site type | Priority level | Key consideration |
|---|---|---|
| Open field or empty lot, no people nearby | First choice | Minimizes risk to people and property regardless of surface type |
| Low vegetation or unpaved ground, unpopulated | Second choice | Softer surface may reduce aircraft damage, but presence of people always outweighs surface type |
| Roads or areas with moving vehicles | Avoid | Traffic and driver reaction create additional, unpredictable hazard |
| Crowds or occupied structures | Last resort only | Accepted only when every other available option is genuinely worse |
Choosing and Executing an Emergency Landing
A decision sequence built for speed while staying consistent with 14 CFR 107.21 and 107.23.
Scan for the nearest genuinely open, unpopulated area
Prioritize proximity and the absence of people over returning to a planned landing site that may no longer be the safest option.
Rule out any path that overflies people, vehicles, or traffic
A slightly farther site that avoids overflight of people is almost always preferable to a closer one that requires flying over them.
Commit to the decision and execute promptly
Once a genuinely safer site is identified, avoid second-guessing the choice repeatedly, which wastes time an emergency may not allow.
Approach the landed aircraft carefully
Confirm propellers have fully stopped and the aircraft is stable before approaching closely, and keep bystanders back until it is clearly safe.
Assess for injury and property damage, then determine reporting obligations
Check on any affected people first, then property, and evaluate the outcome against 14 CFR 107.9's accident-reporting thresholds from Module 2.
Document the full sequence of events
Record the emergency, the site-selection reasoning, and the outcome, both for your own review and in case a 107.21(b) report is later requested.
| Mistake | Why it happens | Correct understanding | Regulation / source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Insisting on the original planned landing site even when it requires overflying people | The planned site feels like the "correct" or "authorized" place to land | 14 CFR 107.21 authorizes landing at an unplanned but safer site when necessary to meet the emergency; 107.23 requires avoiding undue hazard regardless of the original plan. | 14 CFR 107.21, 107.23 |
| Prioritizing a softer landing surface over avoiding people | Reducing aircraft damage feels like a natural priority | Avoiding harm to people always outweighs reducing aircraft damage; surface type is a secondary consideration. | 14 CFR 107.23(a) |
| Assuming every emergency landing automatically triggers a mandatory accident report | The event feels significant enough to require formal reporting | 14 CFR 107.9's specific injury and property-damage thresholds determine reporting, not the general drama of the event. | 14 CFR 107.9 (Module 2) |
| Continuing to search for a "perfect" landing site instead of committing to a good available one | Wanting to make the objectively best possible choice | Prolonged hesitation during a genuine emergency can create more risk than promptly committing to a clearly safe, available option. | 14 CFR 107.21 |
Does 14 CFR 107.21 let a remote pilot land anywhere during an emergency?
107.21 authorizes deviation from a rule to the extent necessary to meet the emergency, but 14 CFR 107.23's prohibition on careless or reckless operation and creating undue hazard still applies to the site actually chosen.
Is a paved surface always better than an unpaved one for an emergency landing?
Not necessarily. Surface type is a secondary consideration; avoiding people, vehicles, and structures takes priority over surface quality when choosing an emergency landing site.
Does an emergency landing automatically require filing a formal accident report?
No. Formal accident reporting under 14 CFR 107.9 depends on specific injury and property-damage thresholds, covered in Module 2, not simply on the fact that an emergency landing occurred.
Test Your Knowledge
Answer the questions below to check your understanding. Every answer can be found in the lesson above.