Commercial Drone Use Continues to Grow, But So Too Does the Regulatory Framework
The use of drones in commercial operations has grown exponentially in the last seven years and now are being used daily in many industries such as…
May 08, 2019 at 09:00 AM
5 minute read
The use of drones in commercial operations has grown exponentially in the last seven years and now are being used daily in many industries such as farming, construction, and oil and gas. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates drone usage through its regulations (Part 107) and its waiver process.
The FAA's operational rules for drones are found at 14 CFR Part 107 Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (known as “Part 107.”) A small drone, weighing less than 55 pounds, can be flown for work or business by following the Part 107 guidelines. Aviators operating under Part 107 must learn the rules, become an FAA-Certified Drone Pilot by passing the knowledge test and register their drone with the FAA.
A waiver is an official document issued by the FAA, which authorizes certain operations of aircraft outside the limitations of a regulation (Part 107), but under conditions ensuring an equivalent level of safety. Once a waiver application is submitted at FAADroneZone.FAA.gov, it is assigned to an analyst and the aviator receives a reference number for the application. If the analyst needs additional information they will send the aviator a Request for Information (RFI.) To avoid a delay in processing the waiver application, an RFI should be responded to as quickly as possible.
On average, a waiver application can be processed in about 30 days. However, because of the complexity of some applications, the FAA prefers that they be submitted at least 90 days before the start of the proposed operation. Waivers are not permanent and may be valid anywhere between one day and four years depending on the waiver requested. All waivers are published on the FAA website and viewable by the public. If a waiver application is denied, it is returned to the aviator with detailed information to help them understand why the waiver was denied.
Best Practices for Waiver Applications
Waivers, although often integral in commercial drone use, are not guaranteed. When applying for a waiver, visualize the planned operation and provide a detailed, complete explanation about expected hazards and your risk mitigation strategies. Include a thorough safety analysis that explains the processes and procedures that will be followed to ensure a safe operation. Approach this process as any aviator would, and make sure to include all common sense details.
For example, explain in detail conditions that an aviator often takes for granted, like seeing and avoiding other traffic and having sufficient fuel (battery life) before taking flight, and note the implications of these conditions in the context of drone use.
The FAA is very clear. If a waiver application does not include hazard identification and risk mitigation strategies, it will be denied, so use available resources easily found on the FAA's website. Additional information on identifying and managing risks is available in the Wavier Safety Explanation Guidelines (WSEG) and the FAA's Risk Management Handbook.
The most commonly sought waiver is night operation. In order to increase your chance at securing this waiver, the drone should be equipped with lights and a daytime survey of the planned night route should be completed. Another common waiver request is operating drones beyond the visual line of sight. To secure this waiver, elaborate on the drone's technical specifications and how it will be able to sense and avoid traffic conflicts.
Commercial Use and Operation of Drones
Drones have become expected for use in some industries, such as construction, where clients now can receive weekly or daily pictures, modeling, and data on a project's status. As a result, many companies now have departments of drone operators who are licensed by the FAA to operate under Part 107. Many do not require waivers, including those where drones are operated over construction projects which are totally within the controlled area of the contractor, and where daytime operations are in sight.
Thinking like an aviator when developing and implementing drone policies and procedures in commercial operations is the gold standard for decreasing drone operational risks. Many commercial drone operations use Drone Operations Handbooks (DOH), which include operation guidelines that go beyond Part 107 requirements. One example is for a DOH to require the filing of a flight plan before each commercial drone flight, and that flight plan be approved by the FAA.
Insuring drones for commercial use is also a way to manage operational risks. Insurers of commercial drone operations consider various factors including the drone operations/industry, drone specifications, flight environment (e.g. inside flights vs. outside flights), claim rate, waiver use, and whether a commercial drone operation has internal drone policies and procedures/DOH which will decrease operational risks. Insurers many times provide guidance to operators in the form of example policies and procedures and pre-flight checklists.
Concerns as to drone operations can be property damage, personal injury or death, or third-party privacy claims. Having prudent operating policies and procedures, having a DOH and thinking like an aviator as to commercial applications tends to decrease the risk in drone operations.
Katherine Staton and Morgan Schweinzger are attorneys in the Aviation practice at Jackson Walker , focusing on both aviation litigation and transactional matters. A firm partner, Ms. Staton is also a private pilot. Ms. Schweinzger, a firm associate, is a commercial pilot with multi-engine and flight instructor ratings.
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 All'Virtue Begets Virtue': Tips for Practicing Law (and Living) Ethically
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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