Immediate Vault Immediate Access

FAA’s New Drone Rules Ready for Takeoff

Drone
The commercial use of drones, or unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), has been widely discussed in the insurance industry. There is much to speculate upon as the technology is still emerging, with any number of possible applications and concerning reports of injuries. While drones bring the promise of efficiency, there is also the uncertain risk profile that comes with this most exciting technology.

With new Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rules ready to take off (pun intended) in August, there will be improved visibility into the procedures and practices used by drone operators. The FAA recently finalized the first operational rules for routine commercial use of drones and, while the total risk picture is still unknown, we can now evaluate the strength and appropriateness of safety controls employed by UAS operators.

Drones are being used in many industries, from construction to utilities to agriculture, and these industries will need to prioritize compliance and risk mitigation. Some of the new operational limitations from the FAA include:

  • At all times the drone must remain close enough to its remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls must be capable of seeing the aircraft with vision unaided by any device other than corrective lenses.
  • Drones may not operate over any person not directly participating in the operation, or under a covered structure, or inside a covered stationary vehicle.
  • Drones may only operate during daylight hours or 30 minutes before sunrise or 30 minutes after sunset with appropriate anti-collision lighting.
  • Drones cannot operate from a moving vehicle unless it is over a sparsely populated area.

These rules appear to provide sound guidelines, but most regulations are only as good as the ability for them to be enforced. For example, under the rules’ operational limitations section, it is stated that most of the new restrictions are waivable if the applicant demonstrates that his or her operation can be safely conducted under the terms of a certificate of waiver. How often will these waivers be allowed and how will the FAA conduct investigations? Insurers will be watching to see how the rules are implemented and enforced.

Clearly, we should take note of this important moment for drones, as implementation of federal safety standards for emerging risk drivers has spawned or grown new insurance business lines that are now viewed as essential coverages. For example, environmental regulation in the late 1970’s and 80’s created the need for environmental coverage.

buy imodium online achievephysiorehab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/imodium.html no prescription pharmacy

State and more recent federal cyber laws are the backbone of cyber policies as insureds must comply with standards to prepare for and respond to breaches. Most recently, the FDA’s Food Safety Modernization Act is driving insureds to take a fresh look at product recall insurance.

Risk managers should expect operating rules to drive new coverages that support the insured’s risk evaluation process.

buy sildalis online achievephysiorehab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/sildalis.html no prescription pharmacy

This will allow for a spectrum of outcomes from exclusionary wording for UAS operations to distinct coverage grants for safe and compliant operators. Loss control and consulting services from insurers could be helpful to guide the risk management surrounding drones. The federal rules also enable additional objective underwriting questions tied to compliance. Expect to see these questions incorporated into specific UAS underwriting application questions.

The risk manager can readily imagine the Coverage A risks that can arise from UAS operations. Those could include but are not limited to third party bodily injury resulting from aircraft failure, a wildfire resulting from a crash and potential catastrophic terrorism uses. Privacy risk under Coverage B is also a risk easy to imagine and well-documented even in the early stages of this new commercial risk driver.

Insurance brokers or consultants can also offer guidance on the various ISO endorsements in circulation seeking to clarify the commercial general liability aircraft exclusions to include unmanned aircraft. ISO endorsements provide options to include Coverage A and/or schedule-specific aircraft for coverage. I do not believe that ISO has plans to amend the currently available endorsement in response to the aforementioned FAA operating rules.

There is no question the use of drones is only going to expand in its application and, with that, operational safety will improve as exposures grow. The industry should expect increased regulations, including flight worthiness certification as well as possible insurance requirements. According to a Goldman Sachs analysis, total global spending on drones in the commercial market is estimated to be around 0 billion over the next five years.

buy tretiva online achievephysiorehab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/tretiva.html no prescription pharmacy

Of that, about $11.2 billion will be generated by the construction industry.

Risk managers should anticipate liability exposure for those that fail to comply with the new regulations. The uses are vast, and given the diversity of users the levels of knowledge and awareness of compliance obligations will vary. Education will be key to ensure users understand their responsibilities and the consequences for not meeting regulatory standards.

As the technology and uses continue to advance, catastrophic loss examples will likely arise in the future. I am hopeful that the new FAA regulation will be a useful tool to mitigate the unknown risks to both drone operators and third party premises owners that might be exposed to drone-related accidents.

How to Influence Risk Management Standards, Frameworks and Guidelines

What do you want risk management standards, frameworks and guidelines to do for your success? Many people depend on these documents to provide needed guidance.

online pharmacy advair with best prices today in the USA

Yet, you have heard the reasons people give for not wanting to deal with risk management standards and frameworks. Perhaps you have even voiced these yourself, at one time or another:

  • Our organization is so unique, no one standard or framework could possibly apply.
  • Standards are the same as regulations—we don’t need more regulations.
  • We know what we are doing—we don’t need any guidance. Those things don’t apply to us anyway.

Whether we like it or not, standards are a part of life and our daily language. We refer to a gold standard as a measure of excellence. There are standard breeds of dogs, horses and even chickens. We have internet standards. And what would we do without standards of care, and food safety standards?

Standards have been around a long time, and actually have benefited society. When time was standardized along the prime meridian, commerce flourished. When the United States decided to build the transcontinental railroad using a standard gauge, deliveries of passengers and goods were made more efficiently. Anyone who has traveled internationally can attest to at least one outcome when there is a lack of standards: the proliferation of power adapters that are needed when representatives from different nations gather.

Standards and guidelines—which typically are voluntary—are not regulations. Standards are created through consensus, public comment and acceptance. Regulations, on the other hand, are mandated through legislation. A primary standard (or “recognized” standard) is an established norm or collection of “best practices” that evolve over time under the jurisdiction of an international, regional or national standards development body. Standards are published as a formal document that can establish criteria, methods, processes and practices. In contrast, a guidance document, company product, corporate standard, etc., that may be developed outside of a recognized standards setting body—but which becomes generally accepted—is often called a de facto standard.

Ultimately, standards provide value when they foster common understanding reflecting collective wisdom, while creating efficiencies and better results for the organizations using them. In benefiting organizations, risk management standards generally recommend, but do not require, risk management criteria, methods, processes and practices. Therefore, they boost risk management’s value—one of the reasons you should care about risk management standards, frameworks and guidelines. And shouldn’t you be involved in developing guidance about your daily work? Another reason to care.

The problem is not a shortage of risk management standards and frameworks, but the proliferation of standards and frameworks that, at times, seem to contradict each other. The result is confusion, even about how terms and concepts are used. Sorting through these contradictions is challenging, particularly when others in the organization may be advocating a different risk management approach. These differences lead respective proponents to argue about which one is “right” or “better,” rather than focusing on the value that risk management can deliver. Creating a new risk management standard does not necessarily help the situation, as it usually just becomes one more competing standard.

There is an unmistakable need for understanding how to apply various risk management standards.

online pharmacy azithromycin with best prices today in the USA

Another reason for you to care: how complementary—or contradictory—risk management standards and frameworks may be can either help or hurt your efforts.

ACT NOW

We all have a unique opportunity right now to influence two of the major risk management guidance documents: ISO 31000:2009 developed by the International Organization for Standardization and the COSO ERM Framework 2004 under the auspices of the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations. Both are undergoing revision reviews at this time.

To influence the ISO 31000 revision: Seek to join the national mirror committee of your country. In the United States, the Technical Advisory Group for the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) is administered by the Association of Safety Engineers (ASSE) and chaired by Carol Fox, RIMS vice president of strategic initiatives. If you are interested in joining the US TAG, contact Ovidiu Munteanu for information and an application (omunteanu@asse.org).

To influence the COSO revision: The revision is open for public comment June 15 through September 30, 2016. COSO has expanded its website, www.COSO.org, with a section on the Framework update that includes the proposed Framework, survey and comment tools, and FAQs about the project, details of the most significant updates and how to respond to the survey. Written comments on the exposure draft will become part of the public record and will be available on the COSO website through Dec.

online pharmacy fluoxetine with best prices today in the USA

31, 2016.