Why Your Drone Business Can't Get Past Procurement

There's a conversation that happens constantly in this industry. A drone operator lands a meeting with a mining company or pipeline operator. The technical discussion goes well - they have good equipment, relevant experience, maybe even some impressive sample deliverables. The client seems interested. Then procurement gets involved, and everything stops.

The questions start arriving: What's your ISNetworld grade? Are you registered with Avetta? Can you provide your COR certificate? Do you have documented JHA procedures? What's your TRIR? The operator stares at acronyms they've never encountered and realizes they're not even speaking the same language as the client.

This isn't about whether you can fly. It's about whether you can integrate into industrial safety systems that existed long before drones arrived. And for most RPAS operators, this is where the conversation ends - not because they're unsafe, but because they've never learned to demonstrate safety in ways the resource sector recognizes.

The Pre-Qualification Gauntlet

If you want to work on industrial sites in Western Canada - oil and gas, mining, pipelines, major construction - you'll encounter contractor pre-qualification systems. ISNetworld, Avetta, ComplyWorks, and several others operate as gatekeepers between you and the work. Major operators won't even consider contractors who aren't registered and compliant on their preferred platform.

These systems exist because industrial clients learned the hard way that contractor safety incidents become their problem. A contractor injury on their site affects their statistics, their insurance, their regulatory standing, and potentially their social license to operate. Pre-qualification lets them verify that anyone coming onto their sites has demonstrated minimum safety competencies before the first boot hits the ground.

The requirements vary by platform and client, but typically include: written safety programs, training documentation, insurance certificates with specific coverage limits and loss payee language, WCB/WSIB clearance letters, incident statistics (TRIR, lost-time frequency), equipment maintenance records, and often COR certification or equivalent. For a small drone operator, getting registered and maintaining compliance across multiple platforms can cost thousands annually and consume significant administrative time.

We've worked through this process ourselves. It's not trivial. But here's what we've learned: the requirements aren't arbitrary bureaucracy. They're asking whether you operate like a professional contractor or like someone with a drone who figured they'd try industrial work. The documentation they want is documentation any serious operation should already have.

COR: The Credential That Opens Doors

In Alberta and British Columbia, the Certificate of Recognition program has become the de facto standard for demonstrating safety management competence. COR certification means your health and safety management system has been externally audited against provincial standards and achieved passing scores. For small employers, SECOR provides a streamlined path with self-assessment rather than external audit.

The practical benefits are significant. COR-certified companies can receive WCB premium rebates - up to 20% in Alberta - because insurers recognize that audited safety systems correlate with lower incident rates. Many industrial clients now require COR as a bid condition, meaning you can't even submit a proposal without it. And beyond the credential itself, the process of preparing for certification forces you to build systems you probably should have anyway.

The certification isn't permanent. You need to maintain it through annual internal audits and periodic external recertification. This ongoing requirement is actually valuable - it prevents safety systems from becoming documentation that sits in a binder while actual practices drift. The audit cycle keeps you honest.

Speaking the Language: JHAs and Field-Level Hazard Assessment

Job Hazard Analysis goes by different names - JHA, JSA (Job Safety Analysis), FLHA (Field-Level Hazard Assessment), FLRA (Field-Level Risk Assessment) - but the concept is consistent. Before work begins, you systematically identify the hazards associated with each step of the task and document the controls you'll use to manage them.

In industrial settings, this isn't optional, and it isn't casual. Every morning before work starts, the crew gathers for a tailboard meeting. Someone walks through the day's JHA, identifies the hazards, confirms the controls are in place, and gets sign-off from everyone involved. If conditions change during the day - weather shifts, new equipment arrives, a different crew shows up - the JHA gets updated. This happens whether you're welding pipe, operating heavy equipment, or flying a drone.

What surprises many drone operators is that their aviation-specific risk assessment doesn't substitute for the site's JHA process. You might have a thorough pre-flight checklist and an operational risk assessment that satisfies Transport Canada, but the site safety officer still expects you to participate in their hazard identification process using their forms and following their procedures. The two systems need to coexist.

We've found it helpful to maintain both: our aviation-focused risk assessment that addresses airspace, weather minimums, equipment airworthiness, and emergency procedures, plus whatever field-level hazard documentation the site requires. The aviation document feeds into the site JHA rather than replacing it. This approach demonstrates that we understand we're operating within their safety system, not parallel to it.

Integration with Site Emergency Response

When you arrive at an industrial site, one of the first things you'll do is complete a site-specific orientation. Part of that orientation covers emergency response: where the muster points are, what the alarm signals mean, who to contact for different types of incidents, and what your responsibilities are if something goes wrong.

This matters for drone operations more than most contractors realize. If an emergency occurs while you're flying, you need to know the immediate actions: land the aircraft safely if possible, account for your crew, proceed to the designated muster point, and ensure you're included in the site's accountability system. Modern industrial sites often use digital mustering - contractors check in electronically, and during an emergency, the system tracks who's accounted for and who's still missing. If you're not in that system, no one knows to look for you.

Your emergency procedures need to integrate with theirs. If you have a drone emergency - fly-away, crash, fire - you need to know whether that triggers site-wide protocols and who needs to be notified. On some sites, any incident involving equipment over a certain value or any fire requires immediate notification to the control room. A battery fire in your equipment case might seem like your problem, but on an industrial site with hydrocarbon processes, it could trigger evacuation protocols.

Communication channels are equally important. Most industrial sites operate on specific radio frequencies with designated channels for emergency traffic. You might need to monitor their frequency while maintaining your own crew communications. Understanding their communication protocols - who calls whom, what information to include in an emergency report, when to use radio versus phone - is part of integration.

The Checkbox Problem

Here's something we've observed in the industry, and we'll be direct about it: many operators treat safety documentation as a checkbox exercise. They download templates, fill in the minimum required information, and file them away. The documents exist. The boxes are checked. But the documentation doesn't reflect how they actually operate, and it certainly doesn't improve their operations.

Industrial clients have seen this pattern countless times. They've learned to look beyond whether documentation exists to whether it's genuine. Does your emergency procedure describe what you'd actually do, or is it generic boilerplate? Does your JHA identify the real hazards of the specific work, or is it a template with the site name changed? Can your crew actually explain your safety procedures, or do they look confused when asked?

The distinction matters because checkbox safety doesn't prevent incidents. Documentation that doesn't reflect actual practice creates a dangerous gap - when something goes wrong, people fall back on habits rather than procedures, and those habits may not be what anyone expected. Real safety culture means the documentation and the practice align, and both are taken seriously.

We've made this mistake ourselves in early operations - having procedures that looked right on paper but weren't actually practiced consistently. The gap became obvious during our first serious client audit. That experience taught us that authentic documentation, even if imperfect, is better than polished documentation that doesn't match reality. At least authentic documentation can be improved.

Standing Out By Actually Doing It

Here's what we've found: the bar for genuine safety culture in the drone industry is surprisingly low. Because so many operators treat it as a checkbox, actually practicing what you document makes you stand out. When a site safety officer asks about your procedures and your crew can explain them clearly - because they actually use them - that leaves an impression.

The resource sector has a culture around safety that goes beyond compliance. Morning tailboard meetings aren't just paperwork - they're genuine conversations about hazards. Stop-work authority isn't theoretical - workers actually use it. Incident reporting isn't punitive - it's how organizations learn. When you demonstrate that you share these values, not just the vocabulary, clients notice.

This means investing time that doesn't directly produce revenue. Running regular safety meetings even when nothing seems wrong. Conducting post-operation debriefs that look for improvements rather than just confirming success. Reporting near-misses rather than quietly being grateful they weren't worse. Maintaining training records that show ongoing development rather than just initial certification. These practices cost time and attention, but they build the culture that sophisticated clients are looking for.

Aviation Adds Complexity

Most industrial safety systems were built around ground-based hazards: working at heights, confined spaces, mobile equipment, hazardous materials, energized systems. Aviation brings a different risk profile that doesn't always fit neatly into existing frameworks.

Your aircraft can affect people who aren't part of your operation. A ground worker might be injured by a falling drone without ever being involved in your task. This third-party risk is unusual in most industrial work, where hazards are primarily contained to the people doing the job. Site safety systems may not have clear protocols for how to manage overhead hazards that move.

You're also operating under aviation regulations that the site may not fully understand. Transport Canada requirements for pilot certification, aircraft registration, and operational procedures exist alongside - not instead of - site-specific safety requirements. Explaining how these regulatory frameworks interact, and demonstrating that you're compliant with both, is part of your integration challenge.

Some industrial sites have developed specific drone policies. Others are still figuring it out. You may need to help them understand what reasonable requirements look like for RPAS operations, distinguishing between controls that actually reduce risk and requirements that just create paperwork. This is a collaborative process - you're helping build their understanding while respecting that they're the experts on their site's overall safety context.

Remote Sensing Doesn't Mean Remote Risk

There's a narrative in the drone industry that RPAS technology reduces risk by removing humans from dangerous situations. A drone can inspect a flare stack instead of sending a technician up scaffolding. It can survey a tailings pond without putting people in boats. The technology genuinely does reduce certain exposure-based risks.

But this narrative can obscure something important: operational remote sensing is still field work, and field work still has hazards. You're still deploying personnel to industrial sites with active processes and mobile equipment. You're still working in environments with potential exposure to hazardous substances. You're still subject to environmental hazards - weather, terrain, wildlife.

In fact, drone operations often place crews in unusual locations that regular site personnel don't access. You might be setting up at the edge of a property near uncontrolled vegetation. You might be positioned downwind of a process area to capture certain data. You might be working in areas without established access routes or emergency egress. These positions can introduce hazards that the site's standard controls don't address.

The risk profile is different, not eliminated. Your hazard assessments need to address the actual conditions of remote sensing operations, not just the aircraft-specific risks. Travel to site, set up locations, crew positioning during flight, equipment handling, environmental exposure - all of this belongs in your hazard identification process.

The Multi-Modal Challenge

Our operations involve more than drones. We deploy autonomous surface vessels for water-based data collection. We use ground-based sensors and GPS equipment. Our crews handle boats, vehicles, and various field equipment alongside aircraft. Each platform brings its own hazard profile, and our safety systems need to address all of them.

This creates a particular challenge for risk assessment. The hazards of small-vessel marine operations are different from the hazards of RPAS operations, which are different from the hazards of field survey work. A single project might involve all three. Your JHA process needs to be comprehensive enough to capture this complexity without becoming so unwieldy that people skip steps.

We've addressed this by maintaining platform-specific hazard inventories that feed into task-level assessments. The drone hazard inventory identifies risks specific to RPAS operations. The marine inventory addresses vessel hazards. When we plan a multi-platform deployment, we pull from each relevant inventory to build a comprehensive assessment for that specific project. It's more work than treating every task the same, but it produces assessments that actually reflect the risks.

Industrial clients appreciate this approach because it shows we've thought seriously about what we're doing. When we can explain how our hazard assessment addresses the specific combination of platforms and tasks for their project—not just recite generic drone safety talking points - it builds confidence that we understand the work.

Different Clients, Consistent Standards

Not every client has the same safety requirements. A small environmental consulting firm has different expectations than a major pipeline operator. A research institution operates under different constraints than a mining company. You'll encounter clients who barely ask about safety and clients who want to audit your entire operation before you set foot on their site.

The temptation is to scale your safety practices to match client expectations - do more for demanding clients, less for clients who don't ask. We've found this approach creates problems. Your crew develops inconsistent habits. Your documentation becomes inconsistent. And eventually, you're working for a demanding client on a day when your team has been conditioned by less rigorous work, and the gap shows.

A better approach is maintaining consistent standards regardless of client requirements. Your safety practices should be the same whether anyone's watching or not. This doesn't mean applying maximum bureaucracy to every task - it means having a baseline that you don't go below. Pre-flight inspections happen every time. Field hazard assessments happen every time. Communication protocols are followed every time. The documentation might be simpler for lower-risk tasks, but the underlying practices don't change.

This consistency becomes a competitive advantage. When a demanding industrial client evaluates your operation, they're seeing practices that have been genuinely practiced, not something you spun up for the audit. Your crew knows the procedures because they use them constantly, not because they crammed before the evaluation. That authenticity is difficult to fake.

Building the Capability

If you're a drone operator looking to work in the resource sector, here's a practical starting point: get your documentation in order before you need it. Build your safety management system. Document your procedures. Establish your training program. Create hazard inventories for your operations. You can do most of this work before you ever register with a pre-qualification platform or apply for COR certification.

Then actually use what you've built. Run your tailboard meetings even when you're working alone or with a single client who doesn't require them. Complete your hazard assessments even when no one's checking. File your incident reports even when they're embarrassing. The documentation becomes credible through practice, and the practices become habit through repetition.

When you do engage with industrial clients, come prepared to demonstrate integration, not just capability. Show that you understand their safety systems and can work within them. Ask intelligent questions about site-specific requirements. Offer to participate in their pre-job safety processes rather than presenting your own as a substitute. Be the contractor who makes their job easier, not the one who creates new coordination problems.

The investment pays off. Operators who can demonstrate genuine safety culture—not just documentation, but culture—have access to work that checkbox operators can't reach. The resource sector has plenty of demand for professional RPAS services. The bottleneck isn't capability. It's credibility. And credibility is built through the unglamorous work of developing systems, practicing them consistently, and demonstrating that you take safety as seriously as your clients do.

---

Aeria Solutions maintains COR-compatible safety documentation, comprehensive HSE policies, and integrated hazard assessment processes for our multi-platform remote sensing operations. We've navigated the pre-qualification process ourselves and continue to work within industrial safety systems across Western Canada. If you're building your own safety management capability and want to compare notes, we're happy to have that conversation.