The Drone Economy’s Next Inflection Point: Part 108 and the Rise of Drones-as-a-Service
In a January 26, 2026 interview on The Federal Drive, host Terry Gerton spoke with James McDanolds of Sonoran Desert Institute about a regulatory shift that could change the unit economics of commercial drone operations—and, by extension, accelerate “Drones-as-a-Service” (DaaS). McDanolds frames the near-term catalyst as the FAA’s proposed “Part 108” approach, which would move certain operations from today’s waiver-driven posture into a standardized framework, notably expanding routine beyond-visual-line-of-sight (BVLOS) operations and enabling one operator to supervise multiple aircraft.
The interview’s core economic claim is straightforward: if labor and travel are major cost drivers, then decoupling the operator from the site (and scaling one operator across a fleet) can materially improve margins. McDanolds illustrates this with remote wind-turbine inspection: instead of deploying qualified personnel to multiple locations, an operator could connect over the internet to drones staged onsite (or distributed across geographies) and run concurrent inspections. This is the business logic of DaaS—buyers purchase outcomes (inspection imagery, progress documentation, inventory counts, perimeter checks), while the provider owns the operational stack, compliance, maintenance, and data pipeline.
Operationally, McDanolds points to “drone-in-a-box” systems—docked drones that remain powered and network-connected so service providers can schedule or on-demand tasking without rolling a crew. That model becomes more compelling if Part 108 normalizes BVLOS operations at scale, which the FAA has been actively advancing through its BVLOS NPRM and related materials describing a pathway toward “routine” BVLOS operations under proposed Part 108. (Federal Register) Notably, the Federal Register shows continuing process movement—including a reopening of the comment period—underscoring that the rulemaking is live, contested, and consequential. (Federal Register)
McDanolds also foregrounds security and accountability. In the interview, he describes Remote ID as the current mechanism for identifying compliant drones by broadcasting key information, helping authorities (and, in practice, other stakeholders) distinguish authorized aircraft from those that should not be operating. The FAA’s Remote ID program and enforcement posture are now established features of the regulatory environment for registered drones. (Federal Aviation Administration)
Additional, fast-moving policy signals reinforce the “industrialization” thesis. In late December 2025, the FCC added foreign-produced s to its Covered List, restricting future FCC equipment authorization for affected devices—an action with direct implications for supply chains, domestic manufacturing capacity, and vendor selection for enterprise and public-sector buyers. (FCC Docs) In that context, the interview’s “talent constraint” argument—training not only pilots, but also designers, testers, and validators—reads less like an academic aside and more like a gating factor for market scaling. (Federal Aviation Administration)
Taken together, Gerton and McDanolds present a coherent picture: DaaS is not merely a branding twist on drone services; it is a scaling model that depends on predictable BVLOS rules, credible identification/security controls, resilient hardware supply, and a workforce capable of supervising automation rather than manually “flying a drone.” If those dependencies align, the drone economy’s growth projections—whatever the precise number—become less speculative and more operationally legible.
Disclaimer:
This post summarizes a third-party interview and related public material. It is not legal advice, regulatory guidance, or an authoritative interpretation of FAA/FCC requirements. Readers should consult official sources and qualified counsel for decisions involving compliance, procurement, or operations.