The waiver application doesn't include any requirements for
proof of anything The waiver process is pretty opaque at this point. Anyone (does not have to be a 107 pilot) can apply for a waiver of
some operational requirements (including applying for night operations). The applicant describes the proposed operations and how they will meet the performance standards for the waiver. The FAA may, during review of the application, request additional information.
There have been several hundred waivers already granted for night operations, more than all other types of waivers combined. You can read the waivers issued to date at
Part 107 Waivers Granted A quick review of the waivers issued for 107.29 (daylight operation) indicates that FAA has not required that any specific lighting system be used, but rather has included the following requirement:
"The sUA must be equipped with lighted anti-collision lighting visible from a distance of no less than 3 statute miles. The remote PIC may reduce the intensity of the anti-collision lighting if he or she determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the interest of safety to do so."
If that language sound familiar, it is almost exactly what 107.29 (b) requires for operation during civil twilight
without a waiver. (Note that 107.29 waivers include additional requirements for nighttime operations, including having one or more VOs, and that the area be lighted well enough to see and avoid persons and obstructions OR the area must be previously surveyed during daylight, noting hazards and obstructions.)
It's not clear that FAA has required applications for waivers of 107.29 to prove that their lighting system meets the visibility requirement. We don't know what the applicants included in their applications or what additional information FAA required. In some 107 waivers, FAA identified specific additional information they reviewed during the evaluation of the waiver request. For example, in the waiver granted to CNN for 107.39 (operation over people), FAA identified a number of documents they reviewed, including CNN's sUAS operations manual. In a small sampling of the hundreds of waivers granted for 107.29 (daytime operation), it appears that FAA has not cited additional documents,
which leads me to believe that some or all of those waivers were granted without review of additional documentation - and therefore
did not require proof of aircraft lighting visibility. I certainly may be wrong about this, as none of the communications leading to issuance of the waivers are easily publicly accessible - only the waivers themselves are.
It seems unlikely that FAA would initiate an enforcement action against a 107 operator
solely due to flying a Mavic Pro with stock lighting during civil twilight unless there was an accident, a near miss with a manned aircraft, a complaint, or some other violation. However, once an enforcement action was initiated for one of those reasons, it's not hard to imagine that FAA might include a 107.29 violation for operating without required lighting. IMHO,
that's when a operator would likely have to prove the lighting adequate.
