The article doesn’t seem to mention if the officers flying drones are licensed. Does anyone know more about this?
Our agency originally worked under a Certificate of Authorization (COA) back in 2016, but we later decided to get all our pilots certified under Part 107.
Peyton said:
Our agency originally worked under a Certificate of Authorization (COA) back in 2016, but we later decided to get all our pilots certified under Part 107.
Our programme also requires Part 107 certification for all our pilots.
Peyton said:
Our agency originally worked under a Certificate of Authorization (COA) back in 2016, but we later decided to get all our pilots certified under Part 107.
I secured the COA for our agency mainly as a backup, but both myself and the other pilot also got our Part 107 certifications.
It could go either way. Either all pilots are certified under Part 107, or the department has a specific accreditation from the FAA to certify their own pilots. This second option involves submitting a training course for FAA approval but simplifies the process for officers to fly legally.
Police can operate without Part 107 if they have a Certificate of Authorization (COA) from the FAA. But most departments still use certified Part 107 operators. If you’re curious about a specific department, you could always ask them directly.
When I was a cop and part of the drone team, we all had to get our Part 107 certifications. We did get some waivers for things like beyond line of sight, but having 107 was still mandatory. That was a few years ago though, so maybe the rules have changed since.
@Remi
Was the waiver for beyond line of sight a blanket approval for a set time? Is this kind of thing easier for government 107 pilots?
Jalen said:
@Remi
Was the waiver for beyond line of sight a blanket approval for a set time? Is this kind of thing easier for government 107 pilots?
I’m not entirely sure. That kind of decision was above my role.
@Remi
Fair enough. I guess I’ll need to ask someone higher up for clarity.
@Remi
I used to work in state environmental enforcement. Even as a government employee, we still needed Part 107 to operate drones for work.
Police departments can be certified by the FAA as a whole. It’s similar to how officers are allowed to use phones or computers while driving—they’re trained for it. I think the certification is called a COA.
@Skylar
Yeah, it’s a COA. It can cover a lot, like flying beyond line of sight.
They could be using a COA or be certified under Part 107. There are departments with waivers for beyond line of sight, but those are limited. For example, Chula Vista has a unique BVLOS waiver: link to their story.
@Misha
I’ve worked under two BVLOS waivers for law enforcement. One didn’t even require a visual observer. These waivers are rare because the FAA isn’t quick to grant them.
Some police in Ross Township are using drones to enforce stop signs. One officer operates the drone and spots violations, then radios an officer down the road to pull over the vehicle. What do people think of this approach?
@Roan
So now drones are being used to make officers’ jobs easier? What’s next, they’ll ask for drones to keep them warm? Seems like a waste of resources to me.
Niko said:
@Roan
So now drones are being used to make officers’ jobs easier? What’s next, they’ll ask for drones to keep them warm? Seems like a waste of resources to me.
It’s actually a smart use of resources. Drones cost way less than helicopters and can be deployed faster. They also help prioritise responses or dismiss unnecessary calls. Maybe you should look into where your taxes go before criticising.
Short answer? Yeah, they can be.
Let’s not act like cops don’t bend the rules when it suits them.