Regulatory Carveouts for Ag-Drones

Why ADI Advocates for Regulatory Carve Outs for Agricultural Drones

The rapid integration of drone technology into agriculture presents an unprecedented opportunity for efficiency, sustainability, and global competitiveness. However, to fully unlock this potential, the regulatory framework governing agricultural drones must evolve to reflect the unique realities of farming. While the Agricultural Drone Initiative (ADI) actively supports the FAA’s division of drone regulations into micro, standard, and heavy-lift categories—especially for operations over people—we firmly believe that agricultural drones, particularly when operated by farmers on their own land, warrant distinct and pragmatic regulatory consideration.

Agriculture's Regulatory Heritage: Agency Over Paternalism

The regulatory history of agriculture in the United States has long privileged personal agency, practical experience, and on-the-ground risk assessment over prescriptive and paternalistic oversight. This fundamental difference stems from the core nature of farm equipment: it is operated by farmers over their own crops, within the bounds of their private property, and not typically over public areas or third-parties’ properties.

Consider this long-standing principle: across the nation, if you are even a day younger than your state's minimum driving age, you are legally prohibited from operating a vehicle on a public road, regardless of responsibility or training. Yet, equally across the country, a 12-year-old, if deemed sufficiently experienced by their parents, can lawfully operate any tractor or multi-million dollar, multi-ton combine harvester to bring in the corn harvest or run a hay baler on their own farm. This stark contrast highlights the implicit understanding within our legal system that operations on private agricultural land, under the direct purview of the landowner, fall under a different risk assessment paradigm. Clearly, regulations need to remain in place to consider the increased potential for abuse and misadventures - but ADI advocates for differentiated treatment for someone who will only be flying 10-20 feet above their cornfield and commercial delivery drones. 

Low Altitude Operations and Minimal Public Risk

The operational characteristics of heavy-lift agricultural drones significantly mitigate public safety concerns. Due to factors like drift and the need for generalized accuracy in application, these drones generally operate at very low altitudes—typically five to ten feet above crops. Only rarely do they exceed 50 feet, such as for certain dry fertilizer applications that benefit from a maximally uniform distribution pattern per square foot at slightly higher elevations. Unless a farm is directly adjacent to an airport, which would, self-evidently, necessitate specific coordination and waivers, the risk to the broader public from these low-altitude, on-property operations is remarkably minimal.

Farmers: Experienced Risk Managers on Their Own Land

ADI certainly advocates for the intelligent, safe, and collaborative integration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) across the entire National Airspace System (NAS). However, we contend that specific dispensations should be offered for America's farms. Here, hardworking individuals are already inherently incentivized to operate safely and are deeply experienced at making the complex cost-benefit and risk assessments necessary to operate otherwise dangerous, heavy equipment on their own property. Their livelihoods and family legacies depend on their sound judgments.

The agricultural calendar operates on an unceasing progression of seasons, and the critical nature of farming tasks means that timing is everything. What might be an innocuous two or three-week delay imposed by a bureaucratic process can represent a catastrophic missed window for properly treating crops. Such a delay can lead to an entire season's yield being ruined, or at the very least, result in farmers missing out on the tremendous efficiency and yield gains offered by agricultural drones for a whole year, all while bank loans against expensive equipment continue to accrue. These are not abstract concepts; they are the tangible realities that dictate the success or failure of a farm.

Conclusion

For these compelling reasons, ADI advocates for relaxed regulations, at least concerning individual farmers operating agricultural drone equipment on their own property. This approach recognizes the unique operational environment, the inherent risk management capabilities of farmers, and the critical time-sensitive nature of agricultural work. By implementing sensible, tailored regulations, we can empower American farmers to fully embrace the transformative potential of agricultural drones, ensuring the continued vitality and competitiveness of our nation's food supply.