When Farm Journal writer Ben Potter ended his “Drone-Buying Checklist” article with an invitation for readers to email him, former NAAA President Brian Rau decided to do just that. Rau was NAAA President in 2010 and currently chairs NAAA’s Government Relations Committee. Earlier this week, he reached out to Potter about a recent article he wrote posing questions farmers and other would-be drone users should ask before purchasing a UAV. The impetus for Rau’s response was the following point in the article:

Will you be FAA compliant? In the past, farmers were advised to fly UAVs under 400’ and not use them for commercial use to stay within FAA regulations. However, a judge recently ruled that FAA’s prohibition on drone use was based on policy statements rather than actual regulations. Be prepared for the legal ramifications to change quickly. 

Rau wanted to clarify the NTSB administrative law judge’s ruling Potter referenced and raise an important point the writer may not have considered. Rau’s email stated:

Regarding [your] point: Will you be FAA compliant? The impression of this point and the whole article is that it is currently legal to use UAVs in a farm business, which is not true. The legal ruling that you refer to regarding aircraft operating under 400 feet was a ruling of one judge of the NTSB. The NTSB is not the regulatory agency for aviation and the FAA has appealed it to the full board. A “stay” on the one judge’s ruling was also ordered at the same time. … There are many FAA certified aircraft and pilots that operate under 400 feet including Agricultural Aircraft, EMS, Fire Suppression, Law Enforcement, Military training, pipe line and power line patrol, search and rescue and animal damage control. 

 

The issue is all about safety. Currently, aircraft operating at low altitudes use see and avoid to prevent collisions with other aircraft. If one aircraft cannotsee (the UAV) the system is only half as safe. This issue is being worked on and all aircraft including UAVs will eventually have the ability to sense and avoid. This is one of the issues the 6 test sites across the country are working on right now. Our industry (aerial application) will probably be one of the users of UAV technology once it is legal to use, although the actual commercial aerial application of products by UAV is probably a long way off. 

 

The important issue that you missed is the issue of Liability. Almost all farm/grower liability policies exclude any aircraft or aircraft operation coverage. (I farm also.) In the case of a collision with another aircraft (or a ground based object or person) the operation of the UAV would probably be found to be illegal and the operator liable for any damages, injuries or deaths and no insurance coverage would be in place.

 

There is a lot of aviation activity in many rural agricultural areas, and I think people need to consider the issue of UAV operation carefully with all the facts.

Rau concluded his letter with an invitation for the writer to contact him or NAAA to learn more about the aerial application industry’s interest in the safe and legal integration of UAVs operating alongside manned aircraft in low-level airspace. In response, Potter said he would take Rau’s points “to heart as we do need to cover safety, legality, etc. more robustly later this year.”