Ops Over People Simplified
by Vic Moss, Drone Service Providers Alliance, May 6, 2024
If you’ve been following the 14 CFR §107.39 (Operations Over People, a.k.a. OOP) Waiver process over the last 4 or so months, you’ll be happy hear that things are moving in the right direction these days.
On May 6th many people who have an OOP Waiver in the queue received a new Request For Information (RFI). And many of those RFIs seem to be asking for information already included in the original application or modification request. I believe that the FAA has to do this since there was a change in policy. They need to have folks answer some questions based on the new criteria. Even if the questions were answered in the original application, they are answers to different questions. Call is bureaucratic silliness, but it is what it is. Just fill out the RFI with the new answers and subit.
But first, let’s take a look at what the new approval provisions are.
The FAA does not have authority to change regulation that has been crafted by Congress. And 14 CR Part 107 is language crafted by Congress. So if you want to fly outside any of those regulations, you can apply for a waiver to do so. Not all sections of 107 are waiverable, but flying over people is. You simply fill out an application to fly outside the requirements of that regulation. Put together good safety case, and you can get a waiver. But it’s rarely that simple.
And this is where those working inside the waiver office can help us. And this is exactly where those inside the waiver office have when it comes to the provisions needed to get approval on a waiver. And they have when it comes to obtaining a 107 waiver to fly over people. They’ve made the provisions much easier to not only understand, but also to successfully answer.
So what are the new provisions? If you want to fly your drone, up to 3.5 pounds, it’s only 6 simple provisions. No more kinetic energy computations, no more 7 page applications (my original OOP application was 7 pages long), and no more second guessing the 107.39 Waiver Safety Explanation Guidelines (WSEGs). Here are the current provisions to apply for and receive a 107.39 (OOP) Waiver. And remember to use imperial measurements. That means pounds, not grams. The FAA runs on imperial measurements. Make the waiver office person’s job easier. They’ll thank you.
Provision 1: “All waivers for operations over human beings now require the use of shielded rotating parts, aka prop guards. Include this in your weight calculation.”
Provision 2: “All unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) operated under 14 CFR part 107 require Remote ID now, unless otherwise authorized by the FAA. If your sUAS does not have Standard Remote ID integrated into the sUA (check uasdoc.faa.gov to make sure it’s on the FAA accepted Declaration of Compliance (DOC) list), include the weight of the Remote ID broadcast module in your weight calculation.”
Provision 3: “All waivers for operations over human beings now require an anti-collision light. Include the weight of the anti-collision light in your weight calculations.”
Provision 4: “Total sUA weights of more than 0.88 pounds and up to 3.5 pounds (3 pounds, 8 ounces) will require an ASTM-certified Parachute Recovery System (PRS) using the ASTM F3322-18 or newer standard. Include the weight of the PRS in your weight calculations.”
Provision 5: “The total weight calculation includes any payload or any other attachments to the sUA.”
Provision 6: “Total sUA weight above 3.5 pounds will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.”
That’s it. You’ll en up with with a few more provisions once your receive the waiver,but these six are what are listed on the RDIs and are the ones you need to answer/confirm for get your 107.39 Waiver. Answer those provisions and then “Describe the proposed operation and justification that establishes the operation can be safely conducted under the terms of a CoW” according to the RFI. And when it comes to that proposal, the hint I was given was “Brevity and clarity is recommended. If one wrote more than 100 words, it’s probably too much, in other words.” This part of the waiver application is required by the regulations found in 14CFR 107, regardless of what sections you’re apply for. So whether it’s an RFI for a 107.39 waiver already in the queue, or a brand new 107.39 application, follow these steps.
So what should your justification (<100 word) outline include? I can’t write it for you, but I suggest you include some, if not all of the following:
~Preflight inspection of all equipment (as required anyway under 14 CFR §107.15).
~Use of one or more VOs for flights over open air assemblies.
~Coordination with venue staff when necessary.~Additional alternate LZs for emergency landing.
~Safety briefing of all flight crew before each flight.
~Mention minimum heights you’ll fly over people.
~Include the fact that every drone you’ll use under this waiver will conform to the requirements set out in the RFI or provisions.
~And anything else you feel may be important for the safety mitigation of the flight.
And remember, “brevity and clarity” will go a long way. Also remember it’s all about safety.
In comparison to the original application I (& many others) compiled, this is a cake walk. Additionally, I had 33 provisions in my original 107.39 approval waiver. And the WSEGs asked some very technical and time consuming questions. One of which basically required that the applicant determine the kinetic energy transference rate of the aircraft you’re applying for at different weight and speeds. That requirement a caused lot of brain damage, on both the applicant who needed to figure all of that out, and the person in the waiver office who needed to confirm it. With the new provisions, you simply need to make sure the drone you’re using conforms to those criteria listed above, and make your justification (key in on “brevity and clarity”) will satisfy your safety case.
So just what are some of the weights of current drones and accessories on the market? If your drone isn’t on this list, you’ll have to check yourself. But all you need is weight. It’s that simple.
DJI Mini 4 Pro & Mini 3 Pro with extended batteries (required for RID):
290 gram (0.64 pounds)
DJI Mini 3 and Mini 3 prop guards: 84 grams (0.19 pounds)
DJI Avata 2
377 grams (0.83 pounds)
All available at Blue Skies Drones.
Firehouse Technology 3SM ARC “V” and ARC “V” PRO strobes
13 grams (0.03 pounds)
Available directly from Firehouse Technology.
Autel Nano+
249 grams (0.55 pounds)
You’ll need to 3D print prop guards
These have also been discontinued by Autel, so this is for those who already have them.
The Parrot Anafi (not Ai or USA)
At 320 grams, this is also a possibility.
Although it’s no longer in production, nor does if have an RID DOC.
But if you can find an RID module, prop cages, and 3SM strobe and keep it under 400 grams, you’ll be good to go.
And I’m sure some of the smaller RID compliant recreational drones would be able to satisfy the <400 gram requirement with prop guards and 3SM strobes. You’ll obviously have to do something about the prop guards, but if you’re in need, it may be worth it.
And if you’re one of those folks who build their own FPV gear, this increased weight limit and simplified application approval criteria will open up more options for you.
As far as the parachute requirement for Provision 4 on the larger drones, we need to wait and get some ASTM approved systems in place. AVSS is a Canadian firm working on parachutes for the larger DJI platforms (DJI M200, M300, M350, and dock), but nothing under the 3.5 pounds limit. Maybe they will?
ParaZero does have a system for the DJI Mavic and DJI Mavic 3 series (along with most of the Matrice series), but the Mavic 3 series parachutes aren’t ASTM compliant. Yet. Keep an eye on them. Odds are they’ll be ready much before anyone else. The SafeAir system for the Mavic 3 series. If they do get ASTM approval, I’ll update this article and mention it my the groups.
If you know of any other parachute companies that make the Mavic 3 series parachutes, add a comment below. Or is you have any contacts in the UAS parachute industry, let them know about this new development.
I know that many of you who have followed this saga have been frustrated by the pace of the changes. Believe me when I say that there are people inside the FAA that I’ve been working with who are just as frustrated, if not more so. And they’ve worked their tails off trying to make it easier for us to do our jobs. I just wish I could name them, but they don’t want me to. So I won’t. Thanks for your patience on this.