This post also appears in sUAS News
---
These days it seems just about anyone can get an FAA Section 333 Exemption that allows them to legally use small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS) for commercial purposes in the U.S. As of October 20, 2015, almost 71% of all Section 333 grants have gone to firms claiming that their primary operation/mission is Film/Photo/Video (and most claim multiple uses). This includes companies that are using drones for movies, as well as for art and real estate, among other things. Inspection and Monitoring has seen the second highest issuance rate, at 31%, while Mapping and Surveying for land and commercial construction, rounds out the top three at 20%.
Looking further into the data, AUVSI reports that at least 84% -- and perhaps as many as 94.5%-- of all approved companies are small businesses. While we don’t agree with their astronomical forecast (see our write-up here), we concur with this analysis.
But here’s the catch. With the bar so low for starting a commercial drone service, what’s the guarantee these businesses will succeed? According to Bloomberg, eight out of 10 entrepreneurs who start businesses fail within the first 18 months. A whopping 80% crash and burn. So given the risk, it makes sense to assess which markets and use cases provide the best chance of success, the skills you’ll need, and the value-add services you should be offering those markets.
Here are five services we think you should consider offering as part of your commercial drone business..
Read more here: http://droneanalyst.com/2015/10/26/five-skills-you-need-to-succeed-in-the-commercial-drone-market/
Comments
@Darrell yes Australia is moving the right way and hopefully will push for the sub 2kg no rules rules. The USA is many many years away from this. Unless they start with a vision of where UK and Australia will likely be within 5 years. When other countries started with very tight rules at least they started and have the ability to refine them and have been. The USA has started with 333's lets hope they refine fast. If you want to make money over there get into training.
@Darrell - I dont know the specifics. My understanding is aircraft hull insurance works much the same way as car insurance. It basically pays for accidents even if the laws broken. But Im hearing the policy payout exceptions are getting more specific. The most knowledgeable person I know is Terry Miller. He has written some about that here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/uas-insurance-submission-suites-our-...
@ Gary - Australia has a reasonable system for certification although it's still expensive and very time consuming. The good news is that it's being improved all the time and that operators here really are required to fly safely and to be insured.
@ Colin - That's interesting. So what's the situation with liability insurance for operators who fly without PPL? Will the insurance company pay out in case of a problem if they aren't compliant with the regulations? Have there been any test cases?
Its not a popular view, but I think right now the USA has the easiest way in to commercial RPA ops in the world. I say that because a PPL is available in many places and because of that there is competition in price. When 107 goes through and you only have a handful of training organisations across the country they will be able to charge what they like. Also the 333 is free, it costs more than $7500 here in South Africa for the paperwork required for your company. I really don't understand why people think its going to get easier. Right now anybody not applying for a 333 and waiting to see what happens might be a little foolish if 333 holders are grandfathered in. At sUAS News we have been told unofficially that the 333 is going to be around for a while. There are also changes to how they are being promulgated starting Nov 1st. So something as they say is in the air. Here's a map with just about all the current 333's on ithttp://www.suasnews.com/faa-drone-333-exemption-holders/
Hi Darrell - I agree with you. It makes little sense. Here's what's interesting. Sec 333s are granted on the basis of the application being filled out correctly - not on proof you have a PPL on staff. It's just a requirement for you to follow and it's up to you to comply with the restriction. It has been that way from the beginning. What we see now is many, many small companies have applied, been granted, but little-to-no follow up by the FAA to confirm they have in fact used an operator with pilot's license - hence the 'low bar' reference. Apparently many don't even file their required monthly reports. Hope that explains some. - Colin
Obtaining a FAA Section 333 exemption may lower the bar but don't forget that the operator has to have a Private Pilots Licence. I'd hardly call that 'lowering the bar' as the article suggests. Indeed, I'd call that a deal breaker. There's simply no way I'd incur the time and cost involved in obtaining a pilot's license simply so I could fly a multirotor commercially. That doesn't make any sense at all. It would be like asking someone to have a license to drive a car because they want to ride a bike.