Every so often, we come across an article that says exactly what many in the industry are thinking—and this one does just that.
Nate Ernst, President of the Tactien Group, took a scalpel to the FAA’s Part 108 proposed rule and laid out the “gotchas” that could trip up BVLOS operations for energy and utilities.
On the surface, the proposal looks like a big step forward—unlocking routine BVLOS for energy, utilities, and infrastructure inspection. But as Ernst points out, the fine print is loaded with gotchas that could reshape how (and if) these rules work in the real world. A few highlights:
Declarations of Compliance
Instead of full type certification, OEMs can self-declare compliance. Sounds easy, but who defines those standards—and who checks them? Without independent validation, trust and liability get fuzzy fast.
Airworthiness vs. Type Certification
Letting manufacturers certify their own aircraft by so-called “consensus standards” brings risk for conflicts of interest, especially when utilities will be flying larger, riskier platforms. Do you trust OEMs to be their own judge and jury? Ernst put it succinctly: “The devil is in the definition: what exactly counts as a consensus standard, and who gets to decide?”
Permits vs. Certificates
The FAA wants a split system: permits for small, low-risk missions and full operating certificates for larger BVLOS ops. This approach draws a stark line between hobbyist-scale and heavy-lift industrial ops, with major compliance costs (and accountability) on the certificate side.
From Pilots to Corporations
Instead of individual FAA-certified pilots, Part 108 shifts accountability to operators. Companies set their own training standards, which could mean rigorous programs…or dangerously “just good enough” protocols. Ernst’s recommendation: “Industry stakeholders should push the FAA to clarify at least baseline expectations for training, certification, and competency validation.”
Right-of-Way Shake-up
For the first time, drones could have priority over manned aircraft in shielded areas like powerlines and rail corridors. Sounds revolutionary, but imagine telling helicopter crews stringing new lines that they have to yield to a UAS buzzing nearby. Downstream effects of the current proposal—like insurance and governance—need to be evaluated before it’s finalized.
Cybersecurity and Maintenance
Operators are expected to define “competent” maintenance staff and build their own cybersecurity frameworks. Without clear FAA baselines, that opens the door to inconsistent practices and potential vulnerabilities—hardly ideal when we’re talking about critical infrastructure.
Ernst’s bottom line: Part 108 has promise, but the industry needs to speak up now during the comment window. Otherwise, the gray areas could turn into long-term roadblocks that stall adoption, drive up costs, and compromise safety.
Read Ernst’s full recap, including additional thoughts on ADSPs, noise standards, population density rules, safety management, and more.
Read the full story on Autonomy Global
