Despite North Carolina Program, Runway Not Yet Clear for Widespread Use of Drones to Deliver Blood
Federal Aviation Administration regulations allow for the commercial use of drone technology at a minimum-risk threshold, making meaningful transport of blood and other medical materials via the unmanned aircraft unlikely in the near future, legal experts told Corporate Counsel.
April 02, 2019 at 12:18 PM
4 minute read
A new use for drones is taking off. WakeMed Health and Hospitals in Raleigh, North Carolina, is using the unmanned aircraft to transport blood from one campus building to another.
And, at least for the hospital, the regulatory obstacles associated with the program aren't that much different from those that currently are required, said Susan James, chief legal officer at WakeMed.
“When we first sat down, we kept trying to make it hard, kept asking, 'Why is it different with the drone?'” she said in an interview. “But the same regulations that apply to us taking things in a car will be the same that apply to us taking it in a drone. If there's a car crash, and we lose samples, those are the same issues as if the drone crashes, and we lose samples.”
But don't expect to see drones whizzing overhead through cities and states en route from one health care facility to another with blood or other hazardous materials in tow—at least not for a while.
That's because Federal Aviation Administration regulations allow for the use of drone technology “at a very minimum risk threshold,” said Mark Aitken, senior policy adviser at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld.
For example, for so-called “revenue flights” like the ones being conducted at the North Carolina hospital, the aircraft, including its attached package, must weigh less than 55 pounds, remain within the visual line of sight, and is prohibited from crossing state lines, unless additional FAA waivers were granted. There also is a U.S. Department of Transportation economic authority compliance component.
Still, the short flights across the North Carolina hospital campus are “a great milestone,” Aitken said, adding the program “shows how you can actually facilitate this through the current regulatory mechanism.”
Waivers can be given for those provisions, but to date the FAA has granted a limited number of waivers to the “visual line of sight” requirement, Aitken said.
A waiver of “visual line of sight is going to be the key to unlock the potential,” of the use of drones in a commercial capacity, said Laura Ponto, counsel at Hogan Lovells and former head of public policy and regulatory affairs for Google X's Project Wing. “It's going to take a coordination between the private sector and the regulators to make sure that [the technology] can be integrated safely, and that can take some time.”
North Carolina is one of less than a dozen sites nationwide to participate in the FAA's Integration Pilot Program, which is designed to provide the regulatory tools needed to explore expanded operations, Aitken said.
WakeMed's CLO James said the hospital plans to expand the program to include miles-long routes between different Raleigh-area WakeMed buildings, adding that compliance with the FAA lies with the drone operator, not the hospital. The current flights are one-third of a mile.
“On the health care side, the [regulatory process] is not as involved as we initially thought it would be,” she said.
Other health care facilities looking to introduce a medical-specimen drone delivery program—either in a manner similar to WakeMed's current format or in an expanded capacity if and when updated regulations are implemented—must consider many factors, legal experts said.
As with traditional medical air transport, there are many risks, arguably more with drones, associated with not managing materials carefully and securely, said Linda Pissott Reig, shareholder at Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney.
“Can you imagine if there were an instance where drones were crashing and materials were spilling and not able to be controlled?” she said. “You have to ask, 'Are they truly protected and secure? Is our system robust enough to ensure that if there is some mishap they are.'”
Robert Van de Vuurst, a partner at Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, advises that “the best thing that hospitals can do from a liability perspective is exactly what they're doing now” with traditional air medical transport.
“Contract out to a vendor, make sure that vendor knows what they're doing and can operate the drone safely,” he said. “Make sure the drone is insured, and then require the vendor to indemnify for anything.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFrom Tires to Tracks: Goodyear Chief Risk Officer Joins Union Pacific as Legal Chief
CSX Joins Rest of Big Four Railroad Companies in Installing New Generation of Legal Leadership
FedEx General Counsel Cruising Into Retirement After 42 Years With Shipping Giant
Trucking Firm Fighting NLRB Order to Reopen Operation It Shuttered in 2020 Amid Strike Rumors
6 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250