State-level statutes governing unmanned aerial vehicle use in academic research in the United States

ABSTRACT

In the United States of America (USA), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) maintains operational control of the national airspace and the aircraft in it – including small unmanned aerial systems (sUAS). However, states and local jurisdictions can regulate collection of imagery/data and where the operator of the aircraft is located. Surprisingly, numerous states have enacted laws that impact unmanned aircraft operations in the national airspace. The proliferation of state statutes regulating sUAS operations and imagery/data collections has resulted in a patchwork quilt of laws affecting the academic or researcher using sUAS in the United States for image collections. These legal challenges are often known in a scientist’s home state but unknown and challenging to operate in another state. This research examined the state-level statutes (currently as of 2020) that govern sUAS operation and associated image collection in the United States as they would apply to academic research/instruction, in particular. All state statutes were categorized into the preparatory, operations, image/data collection regulations and the geographic space affected. The chronology, of when and by state, the laws enacted were also examined. These regulations are presented with interpretation of how the sUAS operator is affected and the possible exemptions available for university personnel lawfully operating a sUAS in their home state and in a non-home state. Problematic issues, such as the restriction of overflights over critical facilities, when the locations of these type facilities are unknown (because of security), are also presented and discussed. Recommendations on how an academic/researcher can qualify for an exemption to statute restrictions are provided.

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our appreciation to Dr. Bruce A. Davis, Director of Operations for sUAS, Mississippi Wing of the Civil Air Patrol, for his kind review on a draft version of this manuscript. Additionally, we are indebted to Charles Raley of the Federal Aviation Administration for his assistance in understanding the FAA position on state and local regulations as covered in the “FAA Fact Sheet” (FAA 17 December 2015). This article would not have come together without the diligent efforts of our research assistant, Jenna Chaudri. We are appreciative of two anonymous reviewers and the associate editor for their insight and comments on the first draft.

DISCLAIMER

The information provided on this article does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and analyses are for general informational purposes only. Readers of this article should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter. No reader of this article should act or refrain from acting on the basis of information on this site without first seeking legal advice from counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. Only your individual attorney can provide assurances that the information contained herein – and your interpretation of it – is applicable or appropriate to your particular situation. The views in this article are those of the individual authors writing in their individual capacities only– not those of their respective employers or any organizations to which each may be affiliated.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. Defined under section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002)

2. Though it possible from some universities to obtain permissions to conduct such activities, those operations are beyond the scope of this article.

3. Additional research involving each state’s legislative records and interviews with lawmakers would be necessary to find the exact motivations for each state’s respective drone laws. Such research is beyond the scope of this article. Such an extensive analysis might be better suited for a doctoral thesis in public policy.

4. Please note that the FAA allows for sUAS operators to obtain permission to operate in a manner that would otherwise violate Part 107, including operations over 121.9 metres. As implied elsewhere in this article, we assume that an academic operator has not obtained such permission. Analysis of such ‘exempted’ operations are beyond the scope of this article.

5. The location of the nuclear fuels plant is commonly known within the Erwin community, particularly through the recent re-licencing approval and public review process. The Nuclear Fuels Services company can be found in Googlemaps but this information is poorly known outside Erwin.

6. Public water supplies by Erwin Utilities are from four groundwater wells (one spring and three groundwater) rather than surface water.