WASHINGTON, D.C.—Within the next month, the FAA will release a final rule outlining pilot certification and initial operations for electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) air taxis and other powered-lift aircraft, a U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) official said Thursday.

At Honeywell’s third annual Advanced Ait Mobility (AAM) Summit in Washington, D.C., Christopher Coes, acting undersecretary of transportation for policy within the DOT, said a highly anticipated special federal aviation regulation (SFAR) defining the rules will be published in the next few weeks.

“The department has a final rule for our powered-lift operations, and we expect that that will be published in the next month,” Coes said. “And I think you will see it is quite responsive to the industry’s comments.”

Industry Raises Concerns

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the powered-lift SFAR in June 2023. The rule would set alternative training and eligibility requirements for certifying powered-lift pilots as well as create operational rules for passenger and cargo transport.

But the document was decried by a collective of stakeholders, spearheaded by the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), who took issue with many of the agency’s proposals.

Namely, industry groups believe powered-lift training courses should credit existing rotorcraft and airplane category certificates, and pilots should be able to add a powered-lift rating directly to those permissions. They urged the FAA to lower the threshold for powered-lift flight hours, remove a requirement that limits training to dual control aircraft, and allow more training in simulators.

The groups also argue that performance-based—rather than prescriptive—rules should be used for powered-lift flight, such as by applying airplane and rotorcraft rules as appropriate rather than creating a new category of operations.

Kristie Greco Johnson, senior vice president of government affairs for the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA), said Thursday that members are seeking a “practical pathway” to AAM integration. And the SFAR could be that pathway.

“AAM isn’t a future Jetsons concept,” Johnson said. “It is actually happening right now in our airspace.”

Amanda Joyner, managing director of government affairs for GAMA, agreed with Johnson and said members are hopeful that the SFAR will help them to get their products on the market quickly. Eventually, investment into AAM manufacturers will dry up if the firms are unable to demonstrate a product, so a final rule could help them begin to turn a profit.

What It Means

The deadline for a powered-lift SFAR is December 16, as mandated by the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 signed into law on May 16—a provision that was lauded by industry organizations, private companies, and lawmakers alike.

The FAA earlier this week missed the bill’s September 16 deadline to issue a NPRM for beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) drone flight. But Andrew Miller, a staffer on the Senate Commerce Minority Committee, and Alexander Simpson, a staffer on that chamber’s majority counterpart, said they are confident the FAA will meet the SFAR timeframe. Hunter Presti, a staffer on the House Majority Transportation Committee, is optimistic but believes it will be tight.

According to Simpson, should the agency miss its deadline, existing standards and regulations for rotorcraft and fixed-wing aircraft would apply to powered-lift models.

Coes said his office is simultaneously developing a U.S. national strategy to safely integrate AAM operations alongside conventional aircraft. That plan has been in the works for over a year and is under department review.

The initiative will require an interagency review and final briefing to Congress, “but I am confident that this will be a set of documents that can be championed by the industry, by academia, by labor, our state and local partners, as well as Congress,” Coes said.

Coes added that his team is working with the International Civil Aviation Organization’s AAM study group to harmonize international consensus on AAM standards, practices, and procedures. The goal, he said, is to ensure the U.S. takes the reins on those provisions.

Conference attendees including Coes hope the FAA and other federal agencies will be able to use the Los Angeles Olympic Games in 2028 as a showcase for AAM technology. The event could also serve as a proving ground for the integration of AAM aircraft with other transportation systems.

In support of that effort, the FAA last year released its Innovate28 blueprint for air taxi integration. Earlier this year, the agency proposed comprehensive certification criteria for AAM aircraft, laying the groundwork to get them approved to fly.

But there is still a long way to go, and the powered-lift SFAR—whenever it is released—will be a key part of the process.

Like this story? We think you’ll also like the Future of FLYING newsletter sent every Thursday afternoon. Sign up now.

The post DOT: Final Rule on Air Taxi Pilot Training, Operations Coming Soon appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The agency intends to use this software to more effectively track its increasing number of uncrewed aerial systems (UAS), which are vital for investigating accidents. The NTSB does not have a centralized system for tracking its drones, which are used to capture video and photos of incidents and perform mapping and photogrammetry.

In its posting, the NTSB notes that, until recently, its UAS program has been operated on a small scale, with just five drones, four active crewmembers, and one program lead. Documentation of fleet assets and personnel was managed manually through basic spreadsheets and databases, a process the agency described as “archaic” and “inefficient,” making it difficult to maintain a robust safety management system.

The NTSB said it has recently launched its UAS Flight Operations program—expanding its aircraft fleet from five to 12 drones—and has increased personnel to a team of 15.

“Implementation of a solution for both aircraft and program management will serve to improve the effectiveness and integrity of NTSB investigations,” the agency said.

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared on AVweb.

The post NTSB Working to Streamline Drone Program appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University on Tuesday announced a partnership with the Advanced Air Mobility Association (AAMA), a nonprofit initiative working with the private sector, universities, government, and other stakeholders to create “road maps” for the introduction of AAM aircraft, tailored for major U.S. cities. Under the agreement, AAMA will leverage the expertise of Embry-Riddle faculty and provide students with opportunities for project collaboration, internships, and more.

AAMA was launched publicly in April and is led by president and CEO Antonio Campello, an Embraer executive of more than 30 years who most recently headed Embraer-X—the company’s innovation arm and technology incubator.

Johann Bordais, president and CEO of Embraer air taxi arm Eve Air Mobility, a spinoff of EmbraerX, sits on the group’s board, which also includes Bristow Group executive David Stepanek and Republic Airways executive Charles Hillis. Both Bristow and Republic are Eve partners.

In addition, AAMA adviser Frank Di Bello previously served as president and CEO of Space Florida, an Eve investor. Michael Amalfitano, who sits on Eve’s board, is on Embry-Riddle’s board of trustees.

However, Campello told FLYING that AAMA receives no funding from Embraer or Eve and is fully agnostic, working with all platforms and OEMs and favoring no company. He said the group has been inviting AAM operators, aircraft manufacturers, industry groups, universities, and city governments to help build the ecosystem needed to bolster a new wave of transportation.

Passenger- or cargo-carrying electric air taxis, for example, will require vertiports, special takeoff and landing sites fitted with chargers and other equipment. Designing, building, operating, and regulating these sites will be a collaborative effort.

AAMA intends to establish “readiness laboratories,” where stakeholders can create and implement a minimum viable product (MVP). Businesses use MVPs, which typically are designed with just enough features to be usable for early customers, to gauge the feasibility of an idea. Essentially, the group is looking to launch a beta version of an AAM ecosystem and receive feedback from customers on how it could be improved.

AAMA will use funding generated from membership fees, grants, events, and fees charged to use its readiness labs to create reports describing how different regions can integrate air taxis and other novel aircraft. Per a pitch deck viewed by FLYING, it will also advocate for key regulations on Capitol Hill.

According to Embry-Riddle, AAMA will work with university faculty that lead AAM programs, such as within the Eagle Flight Research Center. Kyle Collins, an assistant professor of aerospace engineering and the director of the center, said it has been exploring the topic for years.

Embry-Riddle students will also be able to work directly with AAMA members on projects and will have opportunities to intern with the association and its member organizations.

“We’re excited to see our team of experienced professionals collaborating with researchers, faculty, and students to propose innovative and customized solutions aimed at implementing a safe and efficient advanced air mobility ecosystem in cities and regions across the globe,” said Campello.

Separately, Embry-Riddle is collaborating with the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority (GOAA), which manages Orlando International Airport (KMCO), to explore the integration of AAM operations at that site. In addition, researchers are working under a $1.4 million NASA grant to study how air taxis can take off quietly and safely in dense urban environments and turbulent conditions.

It’s unclear how much access AAMA will be granted to those projects, but the organization will hope to glean insights from top aviation experts.

Like this story? We think you’ll also like the Future of FLYING newsletter sent every Thursday afternoon. Sign up now.

The post Embry-Riddle Partners to Prepare Cities for Self-Flying Aircraft, Air Taxis appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

On Monday, the Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust (GSTFT) announced a partnership with Wing, the drone delivery arm of Google parent Alphabet, and Apian, the developer of an application programming interface (API) for medical logistics founded by former NHS doctors, to move blood between two hospitals in less than two minutes. The U.K.’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has approved an airspace corridor between the hospitals and will regulate the trial.

The six-month program, expected to begin in the fall, will serve Guy’s Hospital and St Thomas’ Hospital in central London. According to GSTFT, moving samples between the sites can take more than half an hour by van or bike courier. But per a study in the British Journal of Haematology, transporting blood by drone is just as safe as doing so by ground vehicle.

“The drone pilot combines two of our key priorities—providing the best possible patient care and improving sustainability,” said professor Ian Abbs, CEO of GSTFT.

Howard Dawber, the deputy mayor of London for business and growth, also praised the service.

Wing and Apian have been delivering surgical tools and other medical supplies in Dublin since July. In addition to those Ireland services, Apian has delivered chemotherapy treatment to cancer patients for the Isle of Wight NHS Trust and is working with Zipline to expand a prior trial for the Northumbria Trust.

In London, Wing drones will transport blood samples taken from patients awaiting surgery who are at risk of complications due to bleeding disorders. The aircraft are expected to slash delivery times, allowing NHS technicians to more quickly analyze the sample and determine if the procedure is safe.

The fully electric aircraft—which have completed more than 400,000 deliveries worldwide to date—also figure to reduce emissions while alleviating some ground traffic.

“Drones can increase the responsiveness and resilience of healthcare logistics, allowing clinicians to be more productive and patients to get the care they need sooner,” said Dr. Hammad Jeilani, co-founder of Apian.

Wing drones will transfer samples on demand, flying between the two hospital rooftops at over 60 mph and 200 feet in the air—high enough, Wing says, that their buzzing will blend into the city’s soundscape. The aircraft can tolerate moderate rain and wind. Per Apian, they will carry about 2.2 pounds, so it appears the service will not use Wing’s newer model, which can carry up to 5 pounds.

The drones are largely automated and will follow predetermined routes overseen by a remote pilot, similar to Wing’s U.S. service. Flights will take place during daytime hours from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. local time, Monday through Friday, with no more than 10 trips per day.

The drones are equipped with low-resolution cameras, but according to Wing, no live feed is available, even for its own pilots.

According to Apian, the trial could expand to fly a wider range of “pathology items, medicines and supplies.” In addition to Guy’s and St Thomas’, GSTFT operates three other main hospitals, which could be candidates for an expansion.

“This is one of the many reasons that we are working with companies through our sandbox trials programme, to enable the test and development of pioneering new aviation technology in the U.K.,” said Sophie O’Sullivan, director of the CAA’s Future of Flight program.

Drone delivery is being bolstered by U.K. leaders at the highest levels. The country’s Department for Transport, for example, in March released its Future of Flight Action Plan, a blueprint to make drone deliveries routine by 2027.

Part of that plan is the CAA’s Future Flight Challenge, a nearly $400 million initiative that funds a variety of drone delivery projects. The CAA has already authorized several trials under the program to study drones for inspections, emergency services, and policing. In August, the regulator selected six participants, including Amazon’s Prime Air, for an upcoming round of trials.

The U.K. government has also poured over $9 million into Project CAELUS, which uses drones to deliver medical supplies in Scotland, while the Royal Mail is exploring parcel delivery by drone.

Like this story? We think you’ll also like the Future of FLYING newsletter sent every Thursday afternoon. Sign up now.

The post Google’s Wing to Use Drones to Fly Blood Between London Hospitals appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Concertgoers waited quietly in the eerie light of an LED message that read “SHOW PAUSE. PLEASE, STAND BY FOR DETAILS” as the band’s security team bid good riddance to a rogue drone that had interrupted the performance, flying over the stadium with a capacity of more than 40,000.

Fortunately, the band was able to pick up where it left off after being rushed off stage mid-song, according to crowd members, and the rest of the show went on as planned.

“Detroit! Sorry for the delay in the show tonight,” Green Day said in a now-deleted post on X. “Stadium security had us clear the stage while they dealt with a potential safety issue. [Detroit police] quickly resolved the situation, and we were able to continue. Thanks for understanding.”

Detroit police quickly located and detained the drone pilot before passing the investigation along to the FAA, which has fielded a number of similar inquiries pertaining to drone incursions at sporting events in recent years.

Under the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, drone pilots who endanger other aircraft or people on the ground face penalties up to $75,000 per violation. The agency can also revoke or suspend remote pilot certificates but does not have criminal prosecution authority.

“The FAA investigates all reports of potentially hazardous drone operations,” an FAA spokesperson told FLYING.

Per the Detroit Free Press, drones are permitted to fly over large gatherings in downtown Detroit, such as parades or festivals, but only with authorization from a regional FAA office.

The aircraft are not uncommon at concerts and are often used by promotional teams to capture both bird’s-eye views and close-ups of the crowd. They’ve even been used to capture sweeping footage of pop star Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour—the highest-grossing concert tour of all time, which frequently features sold-out crowds with tens of thousands of fans.

But when an unauthorized drone enters the vicinity, there is no way to tell whether it is toting a camera or something more dangerous—like a weapon. The aircraft themselves can even pose a threat. In 2019, for example, a drone lost its datalink connection, plummeted 8,000 feet, and crashed in a field near a festival in the U.K. attended by tens of thousands of people.

To prevent incidents at sporting events, the FAA uses the temporary flight restriction created for stadiums and other large venues following 9/11. The TFR makes it illegal to fly drones at or below 3,000 feet above ground level within 3 nm of any stadium that seats 30,000 or more. 

These restrictions include NFL, MLB, NCAA, and NASCAR competitions and extend to one hour before and after events. In the case of high-profile events such as the Super Bowl, they can span several days and locations. For those competitions, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security—which are the only entities legally allowed to jam or take down rogue drones—are typically on standby to assist.

Notice to Air Missions (NOTAMs) are issued to alert airspace users of the TFR. Certain drone operators—typically public safety agencies, first responders, and organizations such as media, per the FAA—can apply to fly within it but must be authorized.

While the FAA rules create an enforcement mechanism for rogue drone pilots, they do not always prevent disruptions.

Last year, for instance, a drone forced a stoppage during a game between the Cincinnati Bengals and Baltimore Ravens not once, but twice. Just as Green Day’s security team rushed the band backstage, NFL officials will halt play and send the players to the sidelines whenever a rogue drone is spotted.

According to Cathy Lanier, NFL chief of security and former Washington, D.C., chief of police, there were about 2,500 drone incursions in and around NFL stadiums during the 2022 season. That’s nearly double the number of incidents a season prior.

The problem has gotten so severe that lawmakers have introduced legislation—backed by the NFL, MLB, NCAA, and NASCAR—that would grant state and local law enforcement the same drone takedown permissions as the FBI and DHS.

The FAA tells FLYING that flight restrictions for stadiums and sporting events do not apply to concerts, “but drone pilots must always fly safely so they don’t pose a hazard to people or property below.”

The agency added: “The FAA reviews all TFR requests to determine if they are warranted. To issue a TFR for public gatherings such as concerts, there must be a determination or request from federal law enforcement or national security of a security threat.”

The ability for drones to breach security perimeters around concerts and sporting events raises questions about what dangers they may pose elsewhere. The gunman in the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump in July, for example, reportedly flew a drone over Trump’s Pennsylvania rally in the days prior.

Lawmakers’ attempts to expand government drone takedown authority, though, have been met with pushback from privacy and civil liberties advocates, who argue that journalists, activists, and other members of the public could have their First Amendment rights violated.

Like this story? We think you’ll also like the Future of FLYING newsletter sent every Thursday afternoon. Sign up now.

The post Green Day Bids ‘Good Riddance’ to Drone That Paused Concert appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The FCC last week approved Part 88, which, for the first time, permits certain drone operations within a dedicated 5 GHz spectrum for wireless communications. Most drones fly on unprotected wireless frequencies—the same ones shared by your Wi-Fi router—which raises the risk of interference, such as through jamming.

“Right now, drone operators largely rely on unlicensed airwaves to communicate with and control these uncrewed aircraft systems,” said FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel in a statement. “But the use of unlicensed spectrum leaves these aircraft more vulnerable to interference that could disrupt operations.”

In the U.K. in 2019, for example, a 200-pound drone lost its datalink connection, plummeted 8,000 feet, and crashed about a mile away from a festival with a crowd of 35,000.

As more drones enter the airspace, the potential for such dangers rises. By the FCC’s estimate, the number of drones operating in the U.S. is expected to triple to 6.5 million this decade, and the drone industry will become a multibillion-dollar business.

“These systems support billions in economic activity and can help power services that improve lives,” said Rosenworcel. “Drones are a game-changer for inspecting and maintaining critical infrastructure like cell towers or electric transmission lines. They can access hard-to-reach locations faster and more safely than crews on the ground. First responders increasingly rely on these aircraft to help with rescue operations.

“On top of this, drones have proven invaluable for farmers, providing new ways to monitor field conditions and collect data about crops.”

All of these services, however, are vulnerable to outside actors and forces that could disrupt unprotected frequencies. The FCC rule does not grant all drones access to the dedicated spectrum, but it does lay the groundwork for more UAS to tap in eventually.

Why It Matters

Drone use in the U.S. has grown substantially in recent years—as has the risk for interference in operations.

“We are already starting to live in the future we’ve long imagined: uncrewed aircraft systems are fighting wildfires, supporting news gathering, delivering packages, and supporting national security,” said Rosenworcel.

The aviation industry and regulatory bodies have already developed standards for drone spectrum use around which many companies are designing their technology. But managing those radio frequencies is challenging.

“[The spectrum is] a limited resource in high demand,” said Christian Ramsey, chief commercial officer of UAS equipment provider uAvionix, in a blog post. “Like most things, it is limited because it is in high demand. If too many things are broadcasting and receiving on similar frequencies without a well thought out plan, well—things just don’t work very well, because every message is garbled and is getting stomped on by all of the traffic out there.”

The FCC began tackling the dilemma in 2021 with the establishment of a wireless experimentation zone in Raleigh, North Carolina, dedicated specifically to exploring communications for drones.

“The insights gained from this effort have shaped and strengthened our new rules,” said Rosenworcel. “This includes the innovative approach we take here with the establishment of dynamic frequency management systems [DFMS] that will help this spectrum be used safely and efficiently by a wide array of operators.”

The FCC rulemaking process began shortly after in 2022. The following year, President Joe Biden directed the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to create and execute a National Spectrum Strategy Implementation Plan, which it published in November. “Pillar One” of that plan—which the FCC implemented last week—calls for the 5030-5091 MHz spectrum band to be set aside for control-and-non-payload communications (CNPC) UAS datalinks.

What It Means

By the FCC’s definition, CNPC covers “any transmission that is sent between the UA [uncrewed aircraft] component and the UAS ground station of the UAS, and that supports the safety or regularity of the UA’s flight.” The definition does not include “payload” communications like high-bandwidth video, which are not covered under the rule—at least, not yet.

“Although this regulatory framework covers only a certain type of UAS operations, it is an important step in our ongoing efforts to encourage spectrum-enabled innovation and technological progress for the benefit of all Americans,” said FCC Commissioner Geoffrey Starks, who offered his full support for the initiative.

The rule also excludes networked operations, which per the commission “rely on network infrastructure to go beyond radio line of sight of the operator.” Ground infrastructure, however, could tap into the 5030-5091 MHz band.

“Our actions today should enable UAS to be an effective tool in disaster recovery efforts,” said Starks. “Although we establish a regulatory framework for UAS operating in radio line of sight of an operator, we also permit the use of some ground infrastructure deployment, such as a string of ground stations deployed over a particular and frequently used flight path.”

Starks gave the example of electric utility companies, which could deploy drones linked to ground stations to inspect property damage after a storm, monitor system health during normal operations, or address service disruptions.

“We still need to address a number of remaining issues, including spectrum for networked UAS operations in the 5030-5091 MHz band to fully realize the promise and public interest benefits of UAS,” Starks said.

To access the spectrum, drone operators will use the automated DFMS Rosenworcel alluded to. These systems manage spectrum availability and ensure safe use of the frequency.

The DFMS will assign the operator a temporary frequency within a particular geographic area and time frame, specified by their UAS flight plan. Within that space and time, they would have exclusive and protected use of the band in controlled airspace and “other safety-critical circumstances,” the FCC says.

“By making additional spectrum available through such a framework, we ensure that spectrum is used efficiently and effectively while meeting the needs of UAS operations to be robust, reliable, and safe,” said Starks. “That’s real progress.”

The DFMS framework is still being phased in. In the interim, the rule allows operators to request spectrum permissions from the FAA. Once approved, they must complete an online registration form for the FCC. The commission will notify the public when the rule takes effect and that process becomes available.

Though the protected UAS frequencies will not eliminate interference entirely, Part 88 essentially adds an enforcement mechanism.

“Does designating ‘protected spectrum’ make any type of interference like jamming impossible? Not at all,” said Ramsey, “but it makes the consequences of doing so much higher. With the publishing of Part 88, the 5030-5091 MHz band is aviation-protected spectrum, and we have the rules and the standards by which we can move forward.”

But the work is not done. Several companies, including uAvionix, Aura Network Systems, Boeing and subsidiary Wisk Aero, Lockheed Martin, and Qualcomm, provided feedback on the new rule, pushing back against certain provisions. The FCC rejected many of these suggestions but left the door open for the protected frequencies to be greatly expanded. It will study early drone spectrum operations alongside the NTIA and FAA to identify areas of improvement.

“Enabling a flexible licensing framework for UAS operations with exclusive spectrum access and nationwide network coverage will require an all-hands-on-deck approach from all stakeholders, involving standard developments, spectrum policy, intergovernmental coordination, and full integration of these operations into the nation’s airspace,” said Starks.

Added Rosenworcel: “This is a meaningful step forward to help support the innovative potential of drone technologies and help build a digital future that works for everyone. What comes next is exciting—so let’s get to it.”

Like this story? We think you’ll also like the Future of FLYING newsletter sent every Thursday afternoon. Sign up now.

The post What the FCC’s New Rule Means for Drones appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The firm on Thursday published a blog post characterizing U.S. representatives’ portrayal of its relationship with Anzu, a Texas-based company selling drones that are eerily similar to DJI’s Mavic 3, as inaccurate. At the center of the controversy is a unique licensing agreement that the companies say gives Anzu access to DJI’s hardware and software—considered some of the best in the industry—essentially for free. Lawmakers believe the arrangement is fishy.

U.S. Representatives John Moolenaar (R-Mich.) and Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), both members of the House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the U.S. and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), wrote letters to Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo and Randall Warnas, the CEO and founder of Anzu. Warnas previously spent two years at DJI and was briefly the CEO of rival manufacturer Autel. He founded Anzu in April.

The lawmakers cite independent research from various sources, including a drone review YouTube channel and software engineer, that appears to show similarities between Anzu’s Raptor T and DJI’s Mavic 3. Propellers and batteries, for example, were discovered to be near-identical and interchangeable between the two models.

The concern, according to the representatives, is that DJI is using Anzu to circumvent bans on its technology by the Defense Department, Treasury Department, Commerce Department, and Department of the Interior, as well as several states. A bill being deliberated by Congress, the Countering CCP Drones Act, could extend those bans to the consumer level by effectively preventing new sales of Chinese-manufactured drones.

Lawmakers have likened DJI to TikTok, the Chinese social media platform that faces accusations of farming user data without consent and its own federal ban. The FBI and Department of Homeland Security have lent some credence to those fears, issuing a report in January that links DJI to the Chinese government. A 2022 Washington Post investigation revealed that the company had obscured ties to several state-backed investors.

DJI, however, denies that it receives any government funding or assistance. It claims that a collection of “state-owned banks, municipal investment funds, and capital management companies” own less than a 6 percent stake in the company, but there is no shady business.

“These enterprises are the same as any institutional investor that purchases stock in a private company, regardless of where that company is headquartered,” the company said Thursday. “The equivalent investment in the United States would be a state-backed pension fund investing in U.S. based technology companies.”

DJI also said allegations from U.S. federal agencies—which range from its role as a “Chinese military company” to aiding an ongoing genocide—are misguided. It has repeatedly emphasized that its drones are developed for peaceful purposes, with no state intervention. In April 2022, the company suspended all sales to Russia and Ukraine following reports that its drones were being used on the battlefield.

“DJI is not a military company,” the firm said. “We have no connection whatsoever with the military, and we see no reason to be named as a Chinese military company by the DOD. In fact, we remain one of few drone companies to clearly denounce and actively discourage the use of our drones in combat.”

As for its relationship with Anzu, DJI characterized it as business as usual. Under the companies’ agreement, Anzu is licensed to modify and manufacture DJI hardware and software to produce its Raptor drones. The aircraft are manufactured in Malaysia, which conveniently is not among the countries facing U.S. restrictions on drone technology. The agreement includes no royalties, shared ownership, or reporting on customer data, Anzu claims.

“This is a standard—and legal—arrangement, commonly practiced by companies across various industries,” DJI said. “One of the earliest examples of this approach dates back to 2018 when DJI and Skycatch partnered to deliver custom drones for a customer.”

Lawmakers are suspicious, though, because of Warnas’ comments to the New York Times that DJI “receives a payment for every drone that Anzu orders from its manufacturer in Malaysia.” They also interpret his comments in another interview as an admission that Anzu was formed specifically to get around U.S. restrictions. Warnas told the Times the arrangement was “essentially DJI’s idea” but separately has denied any knowledge of DJI’s agreement with its manufacturer in Malaysia.

The representatives further point out that Anzu and DJI did not disclose their relationship in Federal Communications Commission filings, only admitting the link after observers found similarities in their products. According to DJI, a plethora of businesses, including American firms, leverage its Software Development Kit (SDK) to develop their drones.

“This is why the software used on Anzu’s drones shares some similarities with DJI’s flight apps—it was built using this SDK,” the company said. “However, it is important to note that Anzu is responsible for overseeing its updates and data policies.”

Lawmakers would prefer to hear from Anzu itself. They asked that Warnas provide a detailed outline of the company’s relationship with DJI by the end of next week. In addition, the Anzu CEO will need to answer a barrage of questions pertaining to its factories in Malaysia, the sources of its components, and more.

Like this story? We think you’ll also like the Future of FLYING newsletter sent every Thursday afternoon. Sign up now.

The post DJI Responds to Accusations of Skirting U.S. Bans With Drone Clones appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

On Tuesday, members of the U.S. House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) alleged that U.S.-based Anzu Robotics and Hong Kong-based Cogito Tech are actually fronts for China’s DJI.

DJI is the world’s largest provider of consumer drones—the kind flown by hobbyists for fun or personal enjoyment. The aircraft undercut most American-built models on price and have proliferated among U.S. buyers, including police and fire departments.

“DJI appears to be using [Anzu and Cogito] as part of a concerted effort to thwart current and prospective restrictions on its operations imposed by the United States,” the lawmakers say.

Chinese drone manufacturers have been the target of sweeping bans on procurement and sale among federal agencies, including the Defense Department, Treasury Department, Commerce Department, and Department of the Interior. The FBI and Department of Homeland Security, among other entities, have warned of cybersecurity threats from DJI drones, citing the company’s obscured ties to several Chinese state-backed investors.

Lawmakers have even called the technology “TikTok with wings,” likening it to the Chinese social media app that faces allegations of spying and collecting user data without consent. A bill being deliberated by Congress, the Countering CCP Drones Act, would effectively extend federal DJI bans to the consumer level by prohibiting the drones from using Federal Communications Commission (FCC) infrastructure.

Amidst the DJI panic, Texas-based Anzu quietly registered with the FCC in December. The company’s founder and CEO, Randall Warnas, spent two years as an enterprise sales manager for DJI and was later chief executive of its competitor Autel before resigning abruptly after three months.

U.S. Representatives John Moolenaar (R-Mich.) and Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) worry that Warnas continues to leverage those connections. In letters penned to Warnas and Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, they allege Anzu’s Raptor T drone is “essentially a DJI Mavic 3 painted green, with its remote control and application all running on DJI technology.”

Warnas told FLYING: “We believe there are fundamental misunderstandings about how Anzu Robotics operates and complies with the law. We look forward to working collaboratively with the Committee to address their concerns.”

A Drone Clone?

The lawmakers cite independent research from drone reviewer Half Chrome Drones and software developer Konrad Iturbe, who documented myriad similarities between the Raptor T and DJI’s Mavic 3, including some of the same hardware. Shortly after they published their investigations, DJI revealed the companies’ partnership—which they did not disclose to the FCC—to news outlet DroneDJ.

“DJI has a business partnership with Anzu Robotics,” a company spokesperson said. “This was established with the goal of enhancing the accessibility of capable and cost-effective drones in the market. DJI had established a similar partnership in the past when it collaborated with Skycatch in 2018.”

Anzu claims it has rebuilt DJI’s software in partnership with American firm Aloft Technologies, using U.S. servers to store data. But lawmakers claim the company relies heavily on the Chinese manufacturer in that arena, too.

Moolenaar and Krishnamoorthi cite an analysis authored by Andreas Makris, CEO of German software startup ThinkAwesome, that suggests Anzu’s firmware is signed and decrypted by DJI keys, among other connections. In their view, this “strongly indicates that the Anzu firmware was directly sourced from DJI.”

“The Anzu Raptor is just a green DJI Mavic 3 Enterprise, without any substantial own development,” Makris concludes.

His analysis also found that Raptor’s remote controller “seems to be a relabeled DJI RC Pro.” It has identical firmware but uses a different app, Aloft ai, that runs on DJI’s software.

“The software provided to Anzu Robotics is our Software Development Kit (SDK), which is publicly accessible on the internet for any developers within the drone ecosystem to utilize for free,” a DJI spokesperson told FLYING.

But according to Makris, “all functions like DJI cloudcontrol are still in the SDK. If this is an [sic] ‘secure’ product, like Anzu claims, it should not use an SDK that has these functions included.”

What’s in It for DJI?

Anzu claims to operate and develop its technology independently. But it has a unique licensing agreement with DJI that has drawn scrutiny from lawmakers. According to the firm, the partnership allows it to modify and manufacture DJI hardware and software to produce its Raptor series drones.

“There are no royalties shared with the licensing organization (DJI), no joint or shared ownership of Anzu Robotics, and no reporting on customer data,” the company says in an FAQ.

Lawmakers say the arrangement is fishy. They point out that DJI under the agreement would be providing access to its industry leading technology essentially for free. In addition, internal Anzu materials show that DJI provides “priority technical support” for Raptor drones.

“Through this licensing agreement, Anzu Robotics maintains a relationship with a manufacturer that, in turn, has a relationship with DJI,” the DJI spokesperson told FLYING.

 “Given these facts,” the lawmakers write, “it is hard to understand the business rationale for DJI to enter into this relationship aside from using it as a passthrough to circumvent legal restrictions (current and prospective) placed on its products.”

Warnas’ comments in an interview with the New York Times appear to contradict Anzu’s position: “Anzu licensed the design for its drones from DJI, which receives a payment for every drone that Anzu orders from its manufacturer in Malaysia.”

The implication, according to lawmakers, is that DJI is paying a premium to get Anzu’s “clones” on the U.S. market.

Warnas told the Washington Post he has no knowledge of the agreement between DJI and the Malaysian manufacturer Anzu uses: “It could be just like a monthly fee…but I am unaware of that and I like to be unaware of that because then I could say I don’t know how DJI is benefiting from this.”

In an earlier interview with YouTuber Bill the Drone Reviewer, the Anzu CEO recalled a conversation with DJI executives regarding declining market share due to U.S. bans. Later in the discussion, in lawmakers’ opinion, he admitted “that this conversation was the genesis for the eventual Anzu licensing agreement with DJI.” Separately, Warnas told the New York Times it was “essentially DJI’s idea” to form the arrangement.

Also in lawmakers’ crosshairs is Cogito, which they similarly allege is selling DJI clones. They point to a “teardown” video analyzing the internal components of Cogito’s Specta Air and DJI’s Air 3, in which Half Chrome reviewers discovered certain components, such as propellers and batteries, are interchangeable between the two models.

Makris reviewed Specta’s internal code and found that DJI is listed as the manufacturer. Additionally, drone experts tell The Hill that the Specta Air and Specta Mini are almost indistinguishable from DJI products.

Opening the Floodgates

Moolenaar and Krishnamoorthi request that Anzu provide the House committee with a rundown of its relationship with DJI by September 13. They also pose plenty of questions for the company to answer by September 6.

Lawmakers request that Anzu disclose any contractual and financial transactions with DJI, information on its factories in Malaysia, and the sources of components such as chips. They question DJI’s level of involvement in the manufacturing and sourcing of parts, asking Warnas to detail the nature of his time at the company.

The representatives also issued a call to action to the Commerce Department, urging it to implement measures that would prevent DJI and others from selling white label products through American companies. Such measures could be popular in Congress, which has passed several federal bans on Chinese drone manufacturers with bipartisan support.

“This effort represents a second ongoing attempt by DJI to white label its products,” the lawmakers write, in reference to Cogito. “It is unknown how many more may be ongoing.”

Like this story? We think you’ll also like the Future of FLYING newsletter sent every Thursday afternoon. Sign up now.

The post Chinese Drone Clones Accused of Skating U.S. Federal Bans appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The space agency on Monday introduced the Airborne Instrumentation for Real-world Video of Urban Environments, or AIRVUE—a specially designed pod that attaches to the bottom of a helicopter and can train AAM aircraft to “see” obstacles in their path. The technology is designed to hone computer vision systems for autonomous flight.

Agency researchers in April conducted initial AIRVUE testing at Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida, attaching it to a piloted NASA helicopter to survey the environment.

“The computer algorithms that will enable the aircraft to sense the environment must be reliable and proven to work in many flight circumstances,” NASA said. “NASA data promises that fidelity, making this an important resource for industry.”

Developed and built at NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center in Edwards, California, the pod is equipped with cameras and sensors to collect visual information on weather and other hazards, compiling them into a massive dataset that will be shared with AAM manufacturers.

In the space agency’s view, data collected independently by manufacturers is seldom shared with competitors. That creates fragmentation in an industry the U.S. hopes to one day lead.

“Data is the fuel for machine learning,” said Nelson Brown, lead NASA researcher for the AIRVUE project. “We hope to inspire innovation by providing the computer vision community with realistic flight scenarios. Accessible datasets have been essential to advances in driver aids and self-driving cars, but so far, we haven’t seen open datasets like this in aviation.”

The space agency said it plans to develop more pods that integrate with other aircraft once it refines and evaluates the Airvue design.

This is not NASA’s first foray into self-flying systems. In 2022, for instance, it contracted autonomous flight developer Xwing, which in June was acquired by electric air taxi firm Joby Aviation, to design a safety management system for uncrewed flight.

Joby is just one of the manufacturers collaborating with NASA under its AAM mission, which seeks to give commercial firms the data they need to safely integrate air taxis, drones, and other vehicles within the national airspace.

Also working with the agency are Boeing self-flying air taxi subsidiary Wisk Aero and Archer Aviation, which last year agreed to make Wisk the sole provider of autonomy systems for its flagship Midnight air taxi. Joby and Archer’s aircraft will fly with a pilot at launch, but both anticipate a move to uncrewed flight in the future.

NASA’s research with these companies has spanned everything from turbulence and noise to battery safety and simulated operations around busy U.S. airports. The space agency has also operated self-flying drones to further study automated AAM operations.

Drones operations are on the agenda too. This month, for example, NASA gathered representatives from the drone industry, police and fire departments, and FAA to help the regulator develop a rule for operations beyond the visual line of sight (BVLOS) of the pilot.

In lieu of a final BVLOS regulation, the FAA awards these permissions via waiver. Lifting BVLOS restrictions is expected to greatly expand the service area for drone delivery by allowing operators to essentially manage their own airspace—with FAA supervision, of course.

Like this story? We think you’ll also like the Future of FLYING newsletter sent every Thursday afternoon. Sign up now.

The post NASA Pod Helps Self-Flying Aircraft ‘See’ Surroundings appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The agency last week said that between October 2022 and June 2024, it levied $341,413 in civil penalties against 27 operators who violated federal drone regulations, with the largest monetary fines numbering in the tens of thousands.

Under the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, which President Joe Biden signed into law in March, drone pilots who fly unsafely or without authorization face penalties up to $75,000 per violation. The agency can also revoke or suspend pilot permissions.

“Violating the drone regulations puts lives at risk in the air and on the ground,” said FAA Administrator Mike Whitaker. “Flying a small drone means you are flying an aircraft, and unsafe behavior will cost you.”

The FAA requires most drone pilots to own a valid Part 107 remote pilot certificate with a few exceptions, mainly for recreational users who are flying for fun or personal enjoyment. Some operational restrictions can be lifted via waiver, but pilots by and large must stick to the rules for recreational or certificated operators. People who fly for commercial or government customers, for example, would fall under the latter category.

According to the FAA, as of August, there are more than 785,000 registered drones in the U.S. Of those, about half are recreational and half are commercial models. There are also more than 405,000 certified Part 107 remote pilots. Those figures have risen sharply in recent years, forcing the FAA to implement provisions such as the remote identification rule, which assigns all registered drones a digital license plate.

Still, a few violators have slipped through the cracks.

According to the FAA, one person was fined $32,700 for interfering with a police operation in Wesley Chapel, Florida.

“The drone operator flew so close to a Pasco County Sheriff’s Office helicopter that the pilot had to stop the search for a burglary suspect to prevent a midair collision,” the agency said.

The pilot did not have Part 107 permissions, operated at night without anti-collision lights, and flew above 400 feet—the altitude limit for drones in uncontrolled airspace, which can only be lifted with a waiver.

Several of the incidents occurred during or around major sporting events.

During a 2022 Formula 1 auto racing event in Miami, for example, an uncertificated pilot operated an unregistered drone in Class D airspace, ignored a temporary flight restriction (TFR), and flew beyond the visual line of sight (BVLOS), meaning they could not physically see the drone. BVLOS flights are unauthorized without an exemption from the FAA.

American lawmakers and professional sports leagues, such as the NFL, have reported increasing numbers of drone-related incidents at venues during both regular-season and playoff games. To mitigate this, the FAA prohibits drones that fly at or below 3,000 feet agl within 3 nm of any stadium that seats 30,000 or more, including one hour before and after games, which is the temporary flight restriction created for stadiums and other large venues following 9/11.

But the NFL, for example, had nearly twice as many incursions during the 2022 season as it did the season prior.

One man—who flew an unauthorized drone over Paul Brown Stadium (now Paycor Stadium), home to the Cincinnati Bengals, during a January 2022 playoff game between the Bengals and Oakland (now Las Vegas) Raiders—was hit with $7,760 in FAA penalties. The pilot, who did not have Part 107 permissions, flew over the crowd at night and BVLOS within a TFR.

Two other operators were fined $16,000 and $4,000 for flying within a TFR during 2022’s Super Bowl LVI at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, California. The pilots flew in Class B airspace without authorization, and neither possessed a remote pilot certificate. The FAA implemented a similar TFR around Allegiant Stadium in Las Vegas for Super Bowl LVIII this past February.

As more drones enter U.S. airspace, the odds of an accident or collision rise, as does the chance of misuse. The FAA encourages bystanders to report unsafe or unauthorized drone flights to their local Flight Standards District Office.

Like this story? We think you’ll also like the Future of FLYING newsletter sent every Thursday afternoon. Sign up now.

The post FAA Levies More Than $300K in Fines Against Drone Pilots appeared first on FLYING Magazine.